In the case of Kirk, Superintendent of Public Works, et al. v. Maumee Valley Electric Company (1928), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maumee Valley Electric Company. The dispute arose when a state law required utility companies to relocate their facilities at their own expense whenever road construction necessitated such action. The electric company argued that this was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because it forced them to bear public expenses for which they received no special benefits or privileges in return. The court agreed with the electric company's argument, stating that while states have broad powers over public roads, these powers do not extend to forcing private entities to shoulder costs associated with improvements made for general public benefit.

In the dissenting opinion for Kirk, Superintendent of Public Works, et al. v. Maumee Valley Electric Company, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to deny compensation to Maumee Valley Electric Company was unjustified and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases. He contended that the company had a valid contract with Toledo City which should be honored despite changes in state law or public policy considerations. The city had granted exclusive rights to use its streets for laying electric lines and this right could not be arbitrarily taken away without due process or just compensation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Ohio laws regarding franchises as it failed to consider their historical context and evolution over time.