In the case of Jankovich et al., doing business as Calumet Aviation Co. v. Indiana Toll Road Commission, 1964, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Indiana Toll Road Commission. The dispute arose when Calumet Aviation Company claimed that they were unfairly charged for their use of a toll road which was owned and operated by the Indiana Toll Road Commission. They argued that this violated their rights under both state law and federal constitutional provisions related to equal protection and due process clauses because other users were not similarly charged or at all for using adjacent land strips for similar purposes such as parking vehicles etcetera without paying any fees to commission unlike them who had to pay heavy charges on regular basis just because they used it more frequently than others did occasionally . However, after reviewing evidence presented before court during trial proceedings , justices unanimously decided against plaintiffs' claims stating there wasn't enough proof showing discriminatory treatment towards them compared with rest users hence no violation occurred regarding aforementioned legal principles thereby upholding lower courts' decisions dismissing lawsuit initially filed against defendant party involved herein.

In the dissenting opinion for Jankovich et al., Doing Business as Calumet Aviation Co. v. Indiana Toll Road Commission, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to dismiss the case on procedural grounds without addressing its merits. He argued that this approach was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court decisions and deprived petitioners of their right to a hearing before the court. Furthermore, he contended that dismissing cases based on technicalities undermined public confidence in judicial fairness and integrity by suggesting that courts were more interested in following bureaucratic procedures than ensuring justice was served. In his view, it would have been better for all parties involved if the court had simply decided whether or not Indiana law violated federal constitutional rights as alleged by petitioners instead of avoiding this question altogether.