In the 1912 case of Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Co., Limited v. Boise City, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights between a private company and a city in Idaho. The plaintiff, Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Company, had been granted exclusive rights to supply hot and cold artesian well water within certain limits of the city for twenty years by an ordinance passed by the defendant, Boise City's council in 1890. However, later on, another ordinance was passed allowing other companies to also provide these services which led to this lawsuit. The court ruled that while cities have broad powers under their police power authority including regulation of utilities like water service providers; they cannot grant monopolies or exclusive privileges unless expressly authorized by state law - something not present here.

In the dissenting opinion for Boise Artesian Hot and Cold Water Co., Limited, v. Boise City, it was argued that the city's actions were unconstitutional. The justice believed that by forcing a private company to provide water services at rates set by the city without any form of compensation or due process violated the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that this action essentially amounted to taking private property for public use without just compensation which is against constitutional provisions. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “public use” in relation to eminent domain principles and maintained that setting prices did not equate to regulation but rather an invasion of property rights. This view held firm on upholding individual rights over government control in matters concerning private business operations.