In the case of Bethlehem Motors Corporation et al. v. Flynt, Sheriff of Forsyth County, North Carolina, et al., 1920, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over tax assessments on property owned by Bethlehem Motors Corporation in Forsyth County. The corporation argued that their property was being unfairly assessed at a higher value than other similar properties in the county and state. They claimed this violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause which prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under law - meaning laws must be applied equally to all individuals regardless of race or class. The court ruled against Bethlehem Motors Corporation stating that while there may have been some irregularities in how taxes were assessed across different properties; these did not amount to systematic discrimination as alleged by the corporation. Furthermore, it was noted that even if such discrepancies existed they would need to be addressed through legislative reform rather than judicial intervention. This decision reinforced precedent for courts deferring to local governments' discretion regarding taxation matters unless clear evidence can demonstrate intentional and systemic discrimination violating constitutional protections.

The dissenting opinion in the Bethlehem Motors Corporation v. Flynt case argued that the North Carolina law, which allowed a sheriff to seize and sell property located within his county for payment of a judgment against an out-of-state corporation, did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this was because any state has jurisdiction over all property within its borders regardless of who owns it. Therefore, seizing and selling such property does not deprive anyone of their property without due process as long as they are given notice and opportunity to be heard before seizure or sale occurs. Furthermore, it was pointed out that corporations often have assets spread across many states; if each state could only enforce judgments against assets located in the same state where those judgments were rendered, then creditors would find it difficult to collect what is owed them by multi-state corporations.