The case of Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio et al., 1929, revolved around the issue of whether a state could regulate interstate commerce in relation to telephone services. The plaintiff, Grubb, was an independent operator who provided long-distance telephone service and challenged the authority of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to set rates for his business. He argued that since he was engaged in interstate commerce, only federal authorities had jurisdiction over his operations and not state bodies like PUC. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while states cannot directly regulate interstate commerce as per Commerce Clause under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of U.S Constitution; they can indirectly affect it through their police powers unless Congress has legislated on it or if such regulation conflicts with federal law or policy. In this case, there were no conflicting federal laws or policies hence Ohio's PUC could legally set rates for phone services within its borders even though these services may be part of larger interstate communication networks.

In the dissenting opinion for Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, it was argued that the majority's decision infringed upon constitutional rights and exceeded its jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that the commission had no authority to regulate or interfere with interstate commerce, which they saw as a power reserved exclusively for Congress under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They also contended that by forcing an independent carrier to share its facilities with competitors without just compensation constituted a violation of property rights protected by due process clause in Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “public use” concept arguing it should not be extended to include competition among carriers but rather limited to situations where public necessity requires use of private property.