In the case of Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Company v. Boise City in 1908, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Boise City. The dispute arose when the city passed an ordinance that required all water companies to install meters on their pipes and charge customers based on usage rather than a flat rate. The Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Company argued this was unconstitutional as it interfered with its contract rights under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contractual obligations. However, the court held that there was no violation because contracts are subject to reasonable regulation for public good by state police power; therefore, such ordinances were not considered an impairment but a valid exercise of regulatory authority over utilities serving public needs.

In the dissenting opinion for Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Company v. Boise City, the justice argued that the city of Boise had no right to regulate or limit rates charged by a private water company without first providing just compensation. The justice contended that such regulation constituted an infringement upon property rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. They believed that while it was within a municipality's power to control public utilities, this authority did not extend to dictating prices in cases where there was no evidence of unreasonable or discriminatory pricing practices by the utility company. Therefore, they disagreed with majority’s ruling which upheld municipal rate-setting powers over privately-owned utilities operating within their jurisdiction.