In the 1890 case of Sioux City Street Railway Company v. Sioux City, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, upholding its right to regulate and control public utilities within its jurisdiction. The dispute arose when Sioux City imposed regulations on a street railway company operating within its boundaries, which included requiring it to maintain certain streets and pay for any damages caused by their operations. The railway company argued that these conditions were unreasonable and violated their rights under state law as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The court disagreed with this argument, stating that cities have inherent power over public utilities operating within them - including railways - even if they are privately owned or operated. It further noted that such regulation is necessary for ensuring safety and welfare of citizens while also maintaining order in urban areas where these services operate. This decision affirmed local governments' authority over businesses providing essential services like transportation; thereby setting a precedent for future cases involving similar issues about municipal regulatory powers versus private enterprise rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sioux City Street Railway Company v. Sioux City argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring street railway companies to maintain and repair roads adjacent to their tracks was an unfair burden on these companies. The dissenting justices believed this responsibility should fall on all citizens, as they all benefit from well-maintained streets, not just those who use or operate the railways. They also expressed concern over potential abuse of power by local governments if such ordinances were allowed to stand without scrutiny for reasonableness or fairness. Furthermore, they contended that it was unconstitutional for a municipality to impose such obligations without providing compensation under eminent domain principles.