In the case of Moore v. Missouri, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving state taxation and interstate commerce. The plaintiff, Moore, was an agent for several insurance companies based outside of Missouri who argued that his business activities were part of interstate commerce and thus exempt from state taxation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, Missouri had imposed taxes on him as if he were conducting intrastate business within its borders. The court upheld Missouri's right to tax Moore's activities in this manner. It reasoned that while states cannot interfere with or impose burdens upon interstate commerce directly (which is regulated by Congress), they can regulate and tax local aspects related to such commerce when it comes into their jurisdiction - provided these actions do not conflict with federal law or impede free trade among states. This decision affirmed a broader interpretation of what constitutes 'interstate' versus 'intrastate' activity for purposes of applying state laws and taxes; thereby allowing greater leeway for states to levy taxes on businesses operating within their boundaries even if those businesses have connections beyond them.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Missouri, Justice Brewer argued that the state's decision to deny a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was unconstitutional. He believed that this denial violated Moore's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. According to him, if there is substantial proof showing that an individual might be innocent and such proof could not have been presented at their initial trial, then it is only fair and just for them to be granted a new trial where they can present this evidence. This would ensure justice is served by preventing wrongful convictions or punishments of innocent individuals which he considered as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in any civilized society.