The Supreme Court case Hollis et al. v. Utz et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Constituting the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, et al., 1920 revolved around a dispute over rates charged by gas companies in Washington D.C. The plaintiffs, Hollis and others, were consumers who argued that an increase in gas prices was unjustified and violated their rights under federal law. They sought to have these increases declared void by court order. The defendants included local utility commissioners and two gas companies who had approved or implemented these rate hikes respectively. The Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs on several grounds: firstly, it held that they lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate any specific injury caused by higher rates; secondly, it found no evidence that federal laws governing utilities had been breached; thirdly, it noted that courts should be cautious about interfering with decisions made by regulatory bodies like public utility commissions which are better equipped to assess complex economic issues such as pricing structures for essential services. This decision affirmed principles related to consumer protection litigation including requirements for standing (i.e., showing personal harm) and deference towards expert regulators' judgments on technical matters within their purview.

In the dissenting opinion for Hollis et al. v. Utz et al., it was argued that the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia did not have jurisdiction to regulate rates charged by a private company for water service, as this would constitute an infringement on property rights without due process of law. The dissenters contended that while public utilities may be regulated in terms of rates because they are granted special privileges or franchises by government entities, this does not apply to a private entity operating under no such privilege but merely selling its own property (water). They believed that allowing such regulation would set a dangerous precedent where any business could potentially become subject to rate regulation simply because it provides an essential commodity or service. This view emphasizes strict interpretation and protection of constitutional rights related to property ownership and commerce.