In the 1935 case Fisher's Blend Station, Inc. v. State Tax Commission et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving taxation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Fisher's Blend Station, was an Oregon-based company that blended and packaged tea for sale in other states. The State of Washington imposed a tax on every pound of tea sold within its borders by out-of-state companies like Fisher’s Blend Station. The court held that this tax did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution because it applied equally to both in-state and out-of-state businesses selling tea within Washington state boundaries; thus it didn't discriminate against or burden interstate commerce unfairly. However, while upholding this principle generally, they found that in practice there were some discriminatory aspects to how Washington implemented their law - specifically regarding penalties for non-compliance which could be more burdensome for out-of-state firms than local ones due to differences in enforcement procedures between states. Therefore, although they upheld most parts of lower courts' rulings favoring Washington state (and rejecting most arguments made by Fishers), they also sent back part of case for further consideration about whether these specific penalty provisions might need adjustment so as not to disadvantage interstate firms unduly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Fisher's Blend Station, Inc. v. State Tax Commission et al., argued that the majority had erred in their interpretation of the law and its application to this particular case. The dissent contended that Fisher’s Blend Station was not entitled to a refund on taxes paid for gasoline sold but never used by consumers due to evaporation or leakage during storage and delivery processes. They believed that these losses were part of business risks which should be borne by the company rather than being passed onto taxpayers through tax refunds. Furthermore, they pointed out that there was no provision under state law allowing such refunds for evaporated or leaked fuel, hence it would be inappropriate for courts to create one where legislature has chosen not to do so.