In the case of Brush Electric Company v. City of Galveston et al., 1922, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute between a private electric company and a city over an ordinance that regulated rates for electricity. The Brush Electric Company argued that this ordinance violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving them of property without due process of law and denying them equal protection under the laws. They also claimed it impaired their contractual obligations with consumers. However, the court ruled in favor of the City, stating that there was no constitutional violation because cities have inherent power to regulate public utilities within reasonable limits for public welfare purposes. Furthermore, they found no impairment of contract as customers were not bound to use or pay for services at fixed rates indefinitely.

In the dissenting opinion for Brush Electric Company v. City of Galveston et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Brush Electric Company failed to adequately consider the company's contractual rights. The dissenting justices believed that when Brush Electric entered into an agreement with the city, they did so under certain terms and conditions which were later unilaterally altered by municipal authorities without proper negotiation or consent from both parties involved. This, according to them, constituted a breach of contract and violated principles of fairness and justice. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of public interest in this case, arguing that protecting corporate investments is equally important as safeguarding community welfare since businesses play crucial roles in economic development and job creation.