In the case of Ottinger, Attorney General of New York v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York (1926), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Consolidated Gas Company. The issue at hand was whether or not a state law that limited gas prices to what it cost to produce and distribute plus a reasonable profit violated the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held that such laws did not violate this clause as long as they allowed for companies to make some profit after covering their costs, thus ensuring they were not operating at a loss. This ruling affirmed states' rights to regulate public utilities within their borders while also protecting businesses from potentially unfair legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Ottinger v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law limiting gas prices infringed upon private property rights and violated due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissent contended that while states have power to regulate utilities, this should not extend to setting rates so low as to be confiscatory or prevent companies from earning a reasonable return on their investment. It further suggested that courts must intervene when legislative actions threaten constitutional protections, even in matters typically left to state discretion such as utility regulation. This view held that by upholding an unjust rate-setting law without sufficient evidence of its reasonableness or necessity, the court had overstepped its bounds and undermined fundamental principles of justice and fairness.