In the case of William M. Fishback v. The Pacific Express Company, 1895, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that required express companies to pay a tax on their gross receipts violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Fishback, as Attorney General for Arkansas, had sued Pacific Express for not paying this tax and won in lower courts; however, Pacific Express appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that such taxation interfered with interstate commerce. The court ruled in favor of The Pacific Express Company stating that while states have power to tax businesses within their borders, they cannot impose taxes which directly burden interstate commerce - an area under federal jurisdiction according to Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) of US Constitution. This decision reinforced federal authority over interstate trade and limited states' ability to independently regulate or interfere with it through taxation or other means.

The dissenting opinion in the case of William M. Fishback v. The Pacific Express Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and interpretation, particularly regarding liability for negligence. It contended that the express company should be held liable for damages resulting from its own negligence or misconduct, regardless of any contractual provisions attempting to exempt it from such responsibility. This view emphasized that public policy dictates against allowing companies to evade their duty of care through contractual stipulations, especially when they are providing essential services like transportation where safety is paramount. Furthermore, this perspective asserted that contracts should not be interpreted strictly in favor of those who draft them but rather with an eye towards fairness and justice.