In the 1945 case of El Dorado Oil Works et al. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving oil and gas leases on public lands in California. The plaintiffs, El Dorado Oil Works and others, had obtained these leases from the U.S government but were later informed that their leases were being cancelled due to noncompliance with certain terms and conditions. They filed suit against this cancellation arguing that they had not been given proper notice or opportunity to rectify any alleged breaches before termination was enforced by Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes. The court held in favor of the defendants (the U.S Government), ruling that there was no requirement for prior notice or hearing before lease cancellations could be effected under existing laws governing such contracts at the time - specifically Section 27 of Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands which gave power to Secretary of Interior to cancel any lease upon discovery of violation without need for prior notification or hearing. This decision underscored federal authority over public land resources while also highlighting potential risks faced by private entities engaging in resource extraction activities on such lands.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of El Dorado Oil Works et al. v. United States et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a price control order issued by the Office of Price Administration (OPA) was unjustified and harmful to small businesses. He contended that OPA had failed to consider relevant factors, such as cost increases faced by smaller oil producers, before issuing its order. This oversight, he believed, resulted in an arbitrary and capricious regulation that unfairly burdened these companies while benefiting larger ones with more resources at their disposal. Furthermore, he criticized OPA's refusal to hold public hearings or provide any meaningful opportunity for affected parties to present evidence against its proposed regulations - a failure which he saw as violating basic principles of due process under law.