In the case of Susquehanna Power Company v. State Tax Commission of Maryland, 1930, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over taxation between a power company and the state tax commission. The Susquehanna Power Company was incorporated in Delaware but operated hydroelectric plants on both sides of the river dividing Pennsylvania and Maryland. The company argued that it should not be taxed by Maryland for its operations in Pennsylvania as they were outside their jurisdictional boundaries. However, the State Tax Commission claimed that since electricity generated from these facilities flowed into Maryland's grid system, it fell under their taxing authority. The Supreme Court ruled against Susquehanna Power Company stating that while states cannot tax property located beyond their borders directly, they can impose taxes indirectly when such properties have substantial connections to taxable activities within their jurisdictions. In this case, because electricity produced by out-of-state facilities entered and served customers in Maryland’s market area which created revenue for Susquehanna Power Co., it was deemed appropriate for them to pay taxes to Maryland.

In the dissenting opinion for Susquehanna Power Company v. State Tax Commission of Maryland, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax imposed by Maryland on an out-of-state corporation violated principles of interstate commerce and due process. The dissenting justices contended that the power company, which operated in Pennsylvania but sold electricity to customers in Maryland, should not be subject to taxation by both states as this constituted double taxation. They further asserted that such a tax burden could discourage companies from conducting business across state lines and thus impede free trade among states. Additionally, they maintained that because the company did not have physical assets or operations within Maryland’s borders other than its sales transactions with local customers, it lacked sufficient nexus with the state for jurisdictional purposes under due process standards.