In the case of Danciger et al., Doing Business as Danciger Brothers, v. Cooley in 1918, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a contract for the sale of cotton between two parties. The plaintiff, Danciger Brothers, had agreed to sell cotton to defendant Cooley at an agreed price per pound but later refused to deliver when market prices rose significantly above their agreement. They argued that they were not obligated to fulfill the contract because it was made under duress and undue influence from Cooley who threatened them with financial ruin if they did not agree. However, after examining evidence presented by both sides including letters exchanged during negotiations and testimonies from witnesses present during discussions leading up to signing of contract; court found no proof supporting claims made by plaintiffs about being coerced into entering this deal against their will or better judgment thus ruling in favor of defendant.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Danciger et al., Doing Business as Danciger Brothers, v. Cooley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Texas law prohibiting out-of-state corporations from doing business within its borders unless they agreed not to remove any suits against them to federal court was incorrect. The dissent contended that this law violated the constitutional rights of these corporations by forcing them into an unfair choice between their right to do business and their right to access federal courts. They believed it was unconstitutional for states to impose conditions on foreign corporations' ability to operate within their jurisdiction if those conditions infringed upon federally protected rights or privileges.