In the case of Davis v. Schwartz, 1894, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Wisconsin law that allowed for garnishment proceedings against non-residents violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiff in error, Davis, argued that he had not been properly served notice and therefore his property rights were infringed upon without due process of law. However, the court ruled against him stating that as long as state legislation does not infringe on any federal authority or constitutional provision it is valid within its own jurisdiction. It further held that personal service within its territorial limits is not an absolute prerequisite to satisfy due process requirements under all circumstances; instead what matters is whether there has been an opportunity given for hearing and defense before judgment enforcement occurs.

The dissenting opinion in Davis v. Schwartz argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Wisconsin law requiring railroad companies to maintain fences along their tracks was an overreach of state power. The dissent contended that this regulation interfered with interstate commerce, which is under federal jurisdiction according to the Constitution. They believed that such regulations should be uniform across states for efficiency and fairness in business operations, rather than varying from state to state as dictated by local laws. Furthermore, they argued that if every state imposed its own unique set of rules on railroads it would create chaos and inefficiency within the industry. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Wisconsin’s fence law because it infringed upon federal authority over interstate commerce.