In the case of Walter Fleisher Co., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a California law that imposed property taxes on inventory held for sale in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiff, Walter Fleisher Co., argued that this tax unfairly burdened interstate commerce and therefore should be deemed unconstitutional. However, after reviewing previous rulings and considering arguments from both sides, the court ruled against Walter Fleisher Co.. It found that while states cannot impose taxes directly on interstate commerce itself due to federal jurisdiction over such matters under the Commerce Clause, they can levy taxes on activities or properties associated with it as long as those taxes are applied equally to all businesses within their jurisdiction - including those involved in intrastate trade - and do not create undue burdens specifically targeting out-of-state entities or transactions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Walter Fleisher Co., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax assessment on leased property was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings. The dissent contended that the lease agreement between Walter Fleisher Co., Inc. and its lessor did not transfer enough rights or interests in the property to constitute ownership, thus making it inappropriate for taxation purposes under California law. They also disagreed with how the majority interpreted "possessory interest," arguing that this interpretation expanded its definition beyond what had been previously established by court precedent, potentially leading to unfair tax burdens on lessees who do not hold significant control over their leased properties.