In the case of Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to review a decision by the Oregon Supreme Court regarding an insurance dispute. The original lawsuit involved a car accident in which one party was insured by Jim McNeff, Inc., and another party was uninsured but had purchased "uninsured motorist" coverage from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. After settling with their own insurer for less than policy limits, they sought additional compensation from State Farm under their uninsured motorist coverage. The issue before the court revolved around whether or not this action violated Oregon's "collateral source rule," which generally prevents an injured party from recovering damages that have already been compensated by another source (like insurance). The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that it did violate this rule because both payments were essentially coming from insurance companies. However, when appealed to the U.S Supreme Court on grounds that it conflicted with federal law governing arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce (Federal Arbitration Act), it declined to hear the case without providing any reasons for its denial.

In the dissenting opinion for Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd et al., 1982, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law requiring tow truck operators to obtain written authorization from property owners before towing vehicles parked on private property without permission was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this law violated due process rights of tow truck operators by imposing an unreasonable burden on their business operations and potentially subjecting them to liability for damages if they mistakenly removed a vehicle with implied consent but not explicit written authorization. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of prior case law regarding what constitutes "state action" in enforcing private contracts or agreements under constitutional scrutiny, arguing that there should be no distinction between public officials directly carrying out such actions versus merely authorizing or enabling them through legislation.