In the case of Carley & Hamilton, Inc., et al. v. Snook, Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles, State of California (1929), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over vehicle registration fees in California. The plaintiffs were out-of-state corporations that owned and operated motor vehicles within California but had their principal places of business elsewhere. They challenged a state law requiring them to pay an annual fee for each vehicle they operated within the state on grounds it violated both due process and equal protection clauses under Fourteenth Amendment as well as Commerce Clause provisions against discriminatory treatment between residents and non-residents or interstate commerce regulation by states. The court upheld the constitutionality of this law stating that it was not discriminatory since all operators were required to pay regardless if they resided in or outside California; hence no violation occurred regarding equal protection clause nor did it infrally upon interstate commerce regulations because these fees served as fair compensation for use/maintenance costs associated with public highways which benefited all users including those from other states operating thereon.

In the dissenting opinion for Carley & Hamilton, Inc., et al. v. Snook, Chief of the Division of Motor Vehicles, State of California (1929), it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state corporations to designate an agent for service within California as a condition for doing business in the state violated both due process and equal protection clauses under Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that this requirement imposed undue burden on interstate commerce by forcing non-resident corporations to submit themselves completely to jurisdictional reach of Californian courts even when they might have minimal or no physical presence in the state. It also pointed out potential discrimination against foreign companies since domestic ones were not subjected to similar obligations. Furthermore, it questioned whether such laws truly served any legitimate public interest or merely acted as protective measures favoring local businesses over their out-of-state competitors.