The Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. State of Texas case in 1908 revolved around the alleged violation of an anti-trust law by the oil company. The state accused Waters-Pierce Oil Company, a Missouri corporation operating in Texas, of being part of a trust or combination to control prices and restrict competition within the petroleum industry - actions that were prohibited under Texan law at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against Waters-Pierce, upholding its conviction and fine imposed by Texas courts for violating antitrust laws. This decision was significant as it affirmed states' rights to regulate businesses within their borders for public interest purposes even if those businesses are incorporated elsewhere.

In the dissenting opinion for Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. State of Texas, Justice Moody argued that the company was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that a corporation should be treated as an individual in terms of its constitutional rights and protections. The justice disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing it should include not only procedural fairness but also substantive fairness - meaning laws themselves must be fair and reasonable, not just their application. In this case, he felt that Texas had unfairly targeted Waters-Pierce by enforcing anti-trust legislation more strictly against them than other companies operating similarly within state borders. Furthermore, he criticized how evidence was handled during trial proceedings; specifically questioning whether certain pieces were admissible or relevant to proving violation of antitrust law.