In the case of Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Police Court of the City of Sacramento, State of California et al., 1919, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The dispute arose when PG&E was charged with violating a city ordinance that prohibited stringing electrical wires over private property without consent from property owners. PG&E argued that they had obtained permission from state authorities to install their lines and therefore were not subject to local regulations. The court agreed with this argument, stating that once a company has been granted franchise rights by a state legislature, it cannot be subjected to additional restrictions imposed by municipal governments unless those restrictions have been explicitly authorized by the state legislature. This ruling reinforced principles regarding federalism and preemption - where federal or state laws can supersede local ordinances.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Police Court of the City of Sacramento, State of California argued that the majority's decision to overturn a lower court ruling was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects related to public welfare and safety. The dissenters believed that local authorities should have been allowed to regulate gas rates as they saw fit, especially considering their responsibility for ensuring public safety and protecting consumers from exploitation by monopolies like Pacific Gas & Electric Company. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that these rights did not prevent states or municipalities from regulating utilities' prices when necessary for public good. Furthermore, they contended that courts should defer more often to legislative judgments about economic matters rather than substituting their own views on such issues.