In the case of Springfield Gas & Electric Company v. City of Springfield, 1921, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose when the City of Springfield attempted to enforce an ordinance that required gas companies to obtain a franchise from the city before laying pipes under its streets. The plaintiff, Springfield Gas & Electric Company argued that it had received a state charter granting them permission to lay such pipes and thus did not require additional authorization from local authorities. However, upon review, it was found that their charter only granted them general powers and did not specifically grant rights-of-way for laying pipes under public streets or other property without obtaining necessary permissions from relevant authorities like municipalities or private owners. Therefore, they were subject to local regulations including obtaining franchises as per municipal ordinances.

In the dissenting opinion for Springfield Gas & Electric Company v. City of Springfield, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance that required a public utility company to obtain consent from property owners before installing gas or electric lines in their streets. He argued that this requirement was unreasonable and could potentially hinder the provision of essential services by allowing individual property owners to block infrastructure development. Furthermore, he contended that such an ordinance violated due process rights as it did not provide any mechanism for resolving disputes between utilities and property owners who refused consent without valid reasons. In his view, while cities have broad powers over their streets, these should be exercised reasonably and not used arbitrarily to impede public service companies from performing their duties.