The U.S. Supreme Court case Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Commission et al., 1938, involved a dispute over the constitutionality of an Alabama state tax on interstate motor carriers operating within its borders. The plaintiff, Dixie Ohio Express Company, argued that this tax violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution by placing an undue burden on interstate commerce and discriminating against out-of-state businesses in favor of local ones. However, the court ruled in favor of Alabama's State Revenue Commission stating that states have a right to impose taxes for highway maintenance and construction as long as they are fairly apportioned among those who use them - including both intrastate and interstate operators - without discrimination or excessive burdens imposed upon either class. This decision upheld Alabama’s ability to levy such taxes on companies like Dixie Ohio Express Co., provided it was done equitably across all users regardless if their operations were primarily within or outside state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Dixie Ohio Express Co. v. State Revenue Commission, it was argued that Georgia's tax on gross receipts from interstate commerce did not violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution as claimed by Dixie Ohio Express Co., an interstate motor carrier company. The justice disagreed with majority’s view that this tax constituted a direct and undue burden on interstate commerce, arguing instead that it was merely an indirect effect or incidental burden which is permissible under existing precedents. Furthermore, he contended that if every state imposed similar taxes, it would not lead to multiple taxation because each state could only tax for services rendered within its own borders – thus ensuring fairness in taxation across states involved in interstate commerce.