In the case of White River Lumber Company v. Arkansas ex rel. Applegate, Attorney General (1928), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could tax property located outside its jurisdiction but owned by a corporation operating within it. The White River Lumber Company, incorporated in Washington State and owning timberlands there, also operated sawmills in Arkansas where it processed logs from both states into lumber for sale. The company argued that since their Washington lands were already taxed by that state, they should not be subject to taxation again in Arkansas. The court ruled against the company stating that while double taxation is generally undesirable and often unfair, it does not violate constitutional principles if each taxing authority confines itself to values within its jurisdictional limits. In this case, as long as Arkansas only taxed value added within its borders (i.e., through processing raw timber into finished lumber), such taxation would be permissible even though some portion of total corporate assets were being simultaneously taxed elsewhere.

The dissenting opinion in the case of White River Lumber Company v. Arkansas ex rel. Applegate, Attorney General, argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to consider important aspects of property rights law. The dissenting justices believed that a state should not be able to impose taxes on properties located outside its jurisdiction, as it infringes upon the sovereignty of other states and violates principles of interstate commerce. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "tangible personal property," arguing that this term should include all physical assets owned by a company regardless if they are used for business operations or not. Furthermore, they contended that assessing taxes based on an average value over time rather than actual value at specific points is unfair and arbitrary.