The U.S. Supreme Court case West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (No. 2) in 1934 revolved around the issue of whether a state public utilities commission could regulate the rates charged by a gas company for sales to industrial consumers who used the gas as raw material in manufacturing processes, rather than for light, heat or power purposes which were traditionally regulated services provided by utility companies. West Ohio Gas Company argued that such regulation was beyond the scope of authority granted to commissions under state law and violated its constitutional rights under both federal and state constitutions. However, The Supreme Court upheld the right of states to regulate these rates through their public utilities commissions on grounds that they constituted "sales for resale" within meaning of statute authorizing regulation; thus falling within jurisdictional limits set forth by previous court decisions regarding regulatory powers over utility services. This decision affirmed broad regulatory powers vested in states over businesses providing essential public services like natural gas supply, even when sold not directly to end-users but other businesses using it as input into their own production processes.

In the dissenting opinion for West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Justice Stone argued that the court majority had overstepped its bounds by substituting its judgment for that of a state regulatory body in determining what constitutes just and reasonable rates for public utilities. He contended that it was not within the purview of federal courts to decide on matters related to rate-making unless there is clear violation or abuse of power by state authorities. The justice further asserted that such interference undermines states' rights and disrupts their ability to regulate local businesses effectively as they see fit based on their unique circumstances and needs. In his view, this case did not present any constitutional issues warranting intervention from the Supreme Court; rather, it was merely a dispute about policy preferences which should have been left at the discretion of state regulators.