In the case of Union Dry Goods Company v. Georgia Public Service Corporation in 1918, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over a contract for gas service between Union Dry Goods and Georgia Public Service Corp. The issue at hand was whether or not the state court had jurisdiction to hear this case due to its interstate commerce implications. The Supreme Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction because while the sale of gas is part of interstate commerce, its delivery is not necessarily so. Therefore, disputes arising from such contracts could be heard by state courts without infringing on federal authority over interstate commerce matters.

The dissenting opinion in the Union Dry Goods Company v. Georgia Public Service Corporation case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to being sued in local courts as a condition of doing business within the state was an infringement on interstate commerce. The dissent contended that this requirement placed an undue burden on companies operating across state lines, potentially discouraging them from conducting business in certain states and thus impeding free trade among states. They also expressed concern about potential bias against foreign corporations by local juries, which could result in unfair outcomes for these businesses. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of precedent cases and believed those decisions did not support such broad powers for individual states over interstate commerce.