In the case of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North et al., 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state taxation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Hurwitz, was a resident of Missouri who owned shares in an Illinois corporation that operated solely within its home state but had property in several states including Missouri. The State of Missouri sought to tax dividends received by Hurwitz from this corporation based on the proportionate value of corporate assets located within their jurisdiction. Hurwitz argued that such taxation violated his rights under both the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause as it amounted to extraterritorial application of state law and interfered with interstate commerce respectively. The Supreme Court disagreed with him ruling that there was no violation because he wasn't being taxed for owning stock in an out-of-state company per se; rather he was being taxed for income derived from property situated within Missouri's borders which is permissible under existing laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North et al., argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of error was incorrect and failed to consider important constitutional questions raised by the case. The dissent contended that, despite being convicted under state law for selling milk below a certain price, Mr. Hurwitz had not violated any laws because he sold his product outside city limits where no such pricing regulations existed. Therefore, it was argued that his conviction infringed upon his rights under both the due process clause and equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as impeded interstate commerce contrary to Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of U.S Constitution.