In the case of Noble State Bank v. Haskell, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1910 upheld an Oklahoma law that required all state banks to contribute to a depositors' guaranty fund designed to protect bank customers from losses if any state bank failed. The plaintiff, Noble State Bank, argued that this requirement was unconstitutional as it violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by taking their property without compensation and proper notice or hearing. However, the court ruled in favor of Charles C. Haskell (Governor of Oklahoma) stating that such regulation was within states’ police power for public welfare purposes and did not violate constitutional rights because banking is a business affected with a public interest; hence subjecting it to special regulations for protection against insolvency does not constitute deprivation of property without due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Noble State Bank v. Haskell, Justice Moody argued that the Oklahoma law requiring banks to contribute to a depositors' guarantee fund was unconstitutional. He believed it violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily singling out banks and forcing them to bear public burdens which should be shared by all citizens. Furthermore, he contended that this law interfered with contractual relationships between private parties - in this case, between a bank and its depositors - without providing sufficient justification or compensation for such interference. Thus, according to Justice Moody's dissenting view, while states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate businesses in order to protect public welfare, these powers must still respect constitutional limits on property rights and individual liberties.