In the 1932 case Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. United States et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving railway companies and their rates for transporting coal. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) had ordered certain railroads, including Norfolk & Western Railway Company, to cease and desist from charging higher rates for shorter hauls of coal than they did for longer ones in violation of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act which prohibits such discrimination unless approved by ICC after full investigation. The railways argued that this order was arbitrary as it didn't consider all relevant factors like competition with other modes of transport or different types of commodities carried by them. The Supreme Court held that while ICC has broad powers to determine whether a rate is discriminatory or not, it cannot ignore substantial evidence presented before it nor can its findings be supported merely by theoretical deductions. It must take into account practical considerations affecting transportation conditions which may justify differential pricing between short and long hauls even if prima facie they appear discriminatory under Section 4. Therefore, the court set aside ICC's order against these railway companies due to lack of proper consideration given to their arguments about competitive conditions justifying differential pricing.

In the dissenting opinion for Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) order was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not such an order would actually promote public interest. He believed that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented by ICC demonstrating how its proposed rate changes would benefit public interests and improve service quality in a significant way. Furthermore, he contended that ICC had overstepped its authority by imposing these rates without proper justification or consideration of potential adverse effects on railway companies' financial stability and ability to provide efficient services. Therefore, according to him, this case should have been remanded back to ICC for further investigation before making any final decisions regarding rate adjustments.