In the 1933 case of Bullard et al. v. City of Cisco, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to enforce zoning laws that restricted certain types of businesses from operating within specific areas. The plaintiffs were owners and operators of a grain elevator located within an area zoned for residential use only by the city's ordinance. They argued that this law was unconstitutional as it deprived them their property without due process and denied them equal protection under Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court disagreed with these arguments, stating that such regulations are necessary for public welfare and do not infringe upon constitutional rights if they are reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory in nature. It held that zoning ordinances like those enforced by Cisco were indeed valid exercises of police power aimed at promoting general welfare through controlling land use within municipal boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Bullard et al. v. City of Cisco, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's ruling that a city could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in maintaining public utilities. He argued that municipalities should not enjoy immunity from liability when they engage in commercial activities such as supplying water or electricity to residents and businesses. According to him, these are functions typically performed by private corporations which would certainly be held accountable if their negligence resulted in harm to others. Therefore, he contended that cities should also bear responsibility when their actions cause damage while performing these tasks because it is fundamentally unfair and unjustifiable to shield them from accountability simply because they are government entities.