In the United States v. Turley case of 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that "theft" as used in the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act encompasses all felonious takings of motor vehicles with intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership, regardless if it's done with or without an intention to steal. The defendants were convicted for transporting a stolen truck across state lines after they had rented it from a company but failed to return it within agreed time limits. They argued that their actions did not constitute theft under Connecticut law because there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession - only temporary deprivation occurred due to late return. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by Supreme Court too which held that Congress intended broader interpretation when using term 'stolen' in federal statute.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Turley, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's broad interpretation of "stolen" in the Motor Vehicle Theft Act. He argued that this expansive definition was not supported by legislative history or common law precedent and could lead to unjust outcomes. Specifically, he contended that interpreting "stolen" to include all forms of wrongful taking would criminalize behavior such as borrowing a car without permission - an act which is wrong but does not rise to the level of theft under traditional definitions. Furthermore, he expressed concern about federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by state law if every unauthorized use of a vehicle were considered theft under federal statute.