The U.S. Supreme Court case Richmond v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company in 1898 revolved around a dispute over patent rights for telephone technology. The city of Richmond, Virginia had granted the Overland Telephone Company of Virginia an exclusive franchise to operate telephones within its jurisdiction based on patents held by the company's parent organization, American Bell Telephone Company (later AT&T). However, these patents were later invalidated by court rulings in favor of Alexander Graham Bell's original telephone patent. Consequently, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company sued to prevent Overland from operating under its now-invalidated patents. The Supreme Court ruled that since Overland was operating under invalid patents when it received its franchise from Richmond, it did not have any exclusive right to provide telephone service in the city. Therefore, other companies such as Southern Bell could also offer their services there without infringing upon any legitimate monopoly rights held by Overland or American Bell.

The dissenting opinion in the Richmond v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize the city of Richmond's right to regulate its own streets, which included granting or denying permissions for laying telegraph lines. The dissent emphasized that this power is inherent in municipal corporations unless expressly denied by state legislation. It further contended that a federal law allowing companies like Southern Bell to construct lines across public roads did not automatically supersede local authority, as there was no explicit conflict between them; rather, they could coexist harmoniously with local regulations acting as additional requirements on top of federal ones. Therefore, according to this view, Richmond had every right to refuse permission if it deemed necessary for public welfare or convenience without violating any constitutional rights of the company.