In the case of City of Marion v. Sneeden, Receiver, et al., 1933, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over municipal bonds issued by the city of Marion in North Carolina. The city had issued these bonds to finance improvements to its waterworks system but later defaulted on payments due to financial difficulties during the Great Depression. A receiver was appointed for bondholders who sued for payment and won at both district court and circuit court levels. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court, it ruled in favor of City of Marion stating that under North Carolina law municipalities were not obligated to levy taxes or use public funds specifically for paying off such debts unless explicitly stated in their charter or state legislation which wasn't present here.

The dissenting opinion in the case of City of Marion v. Sneeden, Receiver et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on property owned by a railroad company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the city had unfairly singled out this particular piece of property for taxation while exempting other similar properties from such taxes. They contended that this selective taxation violated principles of equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution and therefore should have been struck down. Furthermore, they disagreed with how valuation was determined for taxing purposes and felt it did not reflect fair market value accurately.