The U.S. Supreme Court case Cuyahoga River Power Company v. Northern Ohio Traction & Light Company et al., 1919, involved a dispute over the rights to use water from the Cuyahoga River for power generation purposes. The plaintiff, Cuyahoga River Power Company, claimed that it had exclusive rights to use the river's water based on an agreement with the state of Ohio and sought to prevent other companies from using it without its permission or paying compensation. However, Northern Ohio Traction & Light Company argued that they also had a right to utilize this resource as per their charter granted by the state legislature in 1899 which allowed them "to take and use water". The court ruled in favor of Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co., stating that while private agreements could be made regarding property usage, these did not supersede public interests or legislative authority granting such privileges.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cuyahoga River Power Company v. Northern Ohio Traction & Light Company et al., 1919, argued that the majority decision was incorrect in its interpretation and application of contract law principles. The dissent believed that there was a valid and enforceable contract between the parties involved, contrary to what the majority held. They contended that sufficient consideration had been provided for this agreement, which should have made it binding under established legal standards. Furthermore, they disagreed with how the majority evaluated evidence related to alleged fraudulent conduct by one party during negotiations leading up to this deal's formation. In their view, these allegations were not substantiated enough to warrant nullifying an otherwise legally sound contract arrangement.