In the 1918 case Fisher v. Rule, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Fisher, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain taxes under federal law. However, after purchasing the property, Fisher found himself facing tax liens which had been placed on it by local authorities prior to his purchase. He argued these were invalid due to the previous owner's tax-exempt status. The defendant in this case was Rule - county treasurer and ex-officio county assessor for Tulsa County - who maintained that regardless of any potential exemptions applicable to previous owners, once sold to someone not entitled to those same benefits (like Fisher), such properties became taxable again. The court sided with Rule stating that while there may have been some merit in Fisher’s argument if he’d bought directly from an original allottee (the first person granted title under government distribution programs), since he'd actually acquired it through several intermediate transactions over time – each potentially subjecting it anew to taxation – his claim didn't hold up legally.

In the dissenting opinion for Fisher v. Rule, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying an injunction against a labor union violated principles of equity and fairness. The dissenting justices believed that the evidence presented in this case clearly demonstrated malicious intent on part of the union members to harm Fisher's business through coercive tactics such as picketing and boycotts. They contended that these actions were not protected by free speech rights or legitimate labor activities, but rather constituted unlawful interference with private property rights and contractual relationships. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant legal precedents which they felt supported granting an injunction under these circumstances. Therefore, in their view, failing to issue an injunction allowed unjustified harm to continue without any remedy for Fisher.