In the case of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Railway Company, 1905, the city of Cleveland filed a lawsuit against the local electric railway company for violating an ordinance that required street railways to maintain and repair roads around their tracks. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railway company, stating that such ordinances were unconstitutional as they violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that it was unfair to place all responsibility on one party (the railway) when other vehicles also used and contributed to wear-and-tear on these streets. This ruling established important precedents regarding municipal regulation of public utilities and interpretation of due process rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Railway Company argued that the city had no right to unilaterally alter a contract with a private company, even if it was for public services such as transportation. The justice emphasized that contracts between cities and corporations should be respected and upheld unless there is clear evidence of fraud or corruption. He also pointed out that this decision could set a dangerous precedent where municipalities feel empowered to interfere with private business operations without proper justification or due process. This, he warned, would undermine confidence in contractual agreements and potentially discourage businesses from investing in public service projects.