In the case of St. Joe Paper Co. et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 1953, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company (ACL). The dispute arose when ACL increased its freight rates, which was approved by Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). However, several shippers including St.Joe Paper Company challenged this increase claiming it to be unreasonable and discriminatory against intrastate commerce as compared to interstate commerce. They also argued that ICC did not have authority over state-regulated railroads for rate increases affecting only intrastate traffic. The court held that under the Transportation Act of 1940, ICC had jurisdiction over all railroad transportation within a single state if it formed part of an interstate journey or affected interstate commerce in any way; thus giving them authority to approve such rate increases even if they impacted primarily on intrastate business operations. Furthermore, regarding claims about discrimination against intrastate commerce due to higher rates than those charged for similar services in other states; the court found no evidence supporting these allegations and hence dismissed them.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Joe Paper Co. et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and would have far-reaching implications on future cases involving railroad companies' liability for damages to goods in transit under their care, custody, and control. He contended that the court had failed to consider adequately whether there were any special circumstances or agreements between parties which could affect liability determination in this case as per common law rules governing bailments contracts (temporary transfer of personal property). Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an outdated federal statute intended to protect shippers against unreasonable practices by railroads during late 19th century when they held monopoly power over transportation industry; asserting it should not be applied here where market conditions are vastly different with multiple transport options available today including trucks and airplanes besides trains.