In the case of City of Joplin v. Southwest Missouri Light Company in 1903, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute between a city and an electric company over their contract terms. The City of Joplin had granted Southwest Missouri Light Company exclusive rights to supply electricity for public lighting for ten years. However, after five years, the city attempted to terminate this agreement claiming that it was unconstitutional under state law which prohibited cities from granting exclusive privileges or franchises without approval by voters. The court held that while such laws were indeed constitutional, they did not apply retroactively and therefore could not affect contracts made prior to their enactment unless explicitly stated otherwise in legislation. Therefore, since no such provision existed in this case, the contract remained valid and enforceable despite its potential unconstitutionality under current law.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Joplin v. Southwest Missouri Light Company, it was argued that the city had no right to regulate or control rates charged by a private corporation for services rendered unless such power is explicitly granted by legislative authority. The justice emphasized that while public utilities may be subject to regulation due to their nature and impact on society, this does not automatically extend to all businesses operating within a municipality's jurisdiction. Furthermore, he contended that any attempt by the city council in setting rates without statutory authorization would constitute an infringement upon property rights protected under the Constitution. He also disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “reasonable compensation” clause in franchise agreement between company and city as allowing rate regulation; instead arguing it only referred to reasonable charges for use of streets and other public places.