In the case of Huntington v. Laidley in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over taxation between the city of Huntington, West Virginia and one of its residents, Mr. Laidley. The city had imposed taxes on Mr. Laidley's property which he believed to be unconstitutional under both state and federal law as it included his shares in national banks located outside West Virginia that were already taxed by other states where they were situated. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Laidley stating that double taxation was indeed unconstitutional according to Article I Section 10 Clause 2 (the Import-Export Clause) and Article IV Section 2 (the Privileges and Immunities Clause) of the United States Constitution. This decision established an important precedent for future cases involving interstate commerce and tax jurisdiction issues by clarifying that local governments cannot impose taxes on properties or assets located outside their jurisdictions if those assets are already being taxed elsewhere.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Huntington v. Laidley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on shares held by non-residents was incorrect. The dissent pointed out that these shares were not property within the state, but rather intangible assets whose value depended on factors outside of West Virginia's jurisdiction. Therefore, they should not be subject to taxation by the state. Furthermore, it was emphasized that this ruling could potentially lead to double taxation if other states also decided to tax these same assets based on their location or ownership status. This would place an unfair burden on shareholders and discourage investment in businesses operating across multiple states.