In the 1932 case of Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state court is not required to follow its own precedent if it decides to change course, and such decisions do not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dispute arose when Sunburst Oil sued Great Northern for damages caused by an oil spill during transportation, relying on a Montana law which had been previously interpreted in favor of railroads in similar cases. However, the Montana Supreme Court reversed its earlier interpretation and found in favor of Sunburst Oil. On appeal, Great Northern argued this was unfair as they relied on previous interpretations of law but were met with an unexpected reversal without notice or opportunity to be heard - thus violating their due process rights. The US Supreme Court disagreed stating that there's no constitutional requirement for state courts to adhere strictly to legal precedents; they can revise them based on new insights or societal changes.

In the dissenting opinion for Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., Justice Sutherland argued that the Montana Supreme Court's decision to overrule a previous interpretation of state law should not be applied retroactively, as it was in this case. He believed that such an application violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it deprived parties of their property without fair warning or opportunity to adjust their behavior accordingly. Sutherland contended that when courts change legal interpretations, they effectively create new laws and these should only apply prospectively, similar to legislative enactments. The majority’s ruling allowing retrospective changes in judicial decisions could lead to arbitrary results and undermine public confidence in the stability and fairness of law.