The Standard Computing Scale Company, Limited v. Farrell case in 1918 involved the State Superintendent of Weights and Measures of New York (Farrell) seizing scales owned by the Standard Computing Scale Company due to alleged inaccuracies. The company sued for replevin - a legal remedy for a person to recover goods unlawfully taken from their possession. However, Farrell argued that he was acting under his official capacity as superintendent and thus immune from such suits. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Farrell, stating that an officer who seizes property under color of his office cannot be held personally liable if he acted within his authority and did not exceed it or use it maliciously or oppressively.

In the dissenting opinion for Standard Computing Scale Company, Limited v. Farrell, Justice Holmes argued that New York's law requiring scales to be inspected and sealed by a state official did not infringe upon the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. He contended that such regulation was within a state's police power as it aimed at protecting consumers from inaccurate weights and measures which could lead to fraud or deception in commerce transactions. The fact that these scales were involved in interstate commerce did not exempt them from this local regulation designed for public protection; rather, they should comply with both federal and local laws unless there is direct conflict between them - something he believed wasn't present in this case.