In the case of Fort Smith Light & Traction Company v. Bourland et al., City Commissioners of the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas (1924), the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a city ordinance that required street railway companies to pave and maintain areas around their tracks violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Fort Smith Light & Traction Company, argued that this requirement constituted an unlawful taking without compensation because it forced them to bear costs for public improvements which should have been shared by all taxpayers. However, the court ruled against them stating that such requirements were within a municipality's police power as long as they were not arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, requiring railway companies to pave and maintain areas surrounding their tracks did not violate constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Fort Smith Light & Traction Company v. Bourland et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold an ordinance requiring street railway companies to pave and maintain streets surrounding their tracks, even beyond their actual use area, imposed an unfair burden on these companies. The dissenting justices contended that this requirement went beyond reasonable regulation of a public utility and instead constituted a form of special taxation without proper justification or benefit conferred upon the company in return. They believed that such obligations should be borne by all property owners benefiting from improved roads rather than being disproportionately placed on one class of property owner (the railway companies). Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse if municipalities could arbitrarily impose such burdensome requirements on businesses operating within their jurisdiction under the guise of regulatory power.