In the Florsheim v. Schilling case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Florsheim. The dispute was over a patent for an improvement in sewing machines for boots and shoes, which Schilling claimed to have been infringed by Florsheim. However, upon examination it was found that there were significant differences between the device used by Florsheim and that described in Schilling's patent claim. The court concluded that these differences were enough to rule out any infringement on part of Florsheim as they did not use or replicate any novel feature presented by Schilling’s patented invention.

In the dissenting opinion for Florsheim v. Schilling, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law taxing out-of-state businesses was inconsistent with previous rulings on interstate commerce. He contended that such taxes were essentially tariffs and thus violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress exclusive power over interstate trade. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would allow states to discriminate against out-of-state businesses in favor of local ones, leading to protectionism and disrupting free trade among states. This could potentially harm national unity by encouraging economic sectionalism. Therefore, he dissented from the majority’s view upholding Illinois’ license tax on sales agents representing non-resident manufacturers or dealers.