The U.S. Supreme Court case Ohio Valley Water Company v. Ben Avon Borough et al., 1919, revolved around the issue of rate regulation and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ohio Valley Water Company challenged a decision by Pennsylvania's Public Service Commission that reduced its rates, arguing it was not given an opportunity to prove whether this reduction would prevent them from earning a fair return on their property value. The company claimed this violated their constitutional right to due process as they were denied judicial review of the commission's valuation methods used in determining these rates. In response, Ben Avon Borough argued that such decisions should be left to administrative bodies like commissions rather than courts. The Supreme Court sided with Ohio Valley Water Company ruling that when a public utility claims confiscation of property will result from enforcement of rates set by an administrative body, it is entitled to have judicial determination upon both law and facts underlying the claim; thus affirming companies' right for court reviews in cases where regulatory actions could potentially infrive on their ability to earn reasonable profits.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio Valley Water Company v. Ben Avon Borough, Justice Holmes argued that it was not necessary for courts to review every rate set by a public utility commission. He believed that if the rates were reasonable and did not lead to confiscation of property, then they should be upheld without judicial interference. Holmes maintained that such matters are better left in the hands of experts who have been appointed specifically to handle them rather than judges who may lack technical expertise in these areas. He also expressed concern about overstepping constitutional boundaries and interfering with legislative powers by allowing courts too much authority in determining what constitutes just compensation or fair return on investment for utilities companies.