The U.S. Supreme Court case Glenwood Light and Water Company v. Mutual Light, Heat and Power Company in 1915 revolved around a dispute between two utility companies over the right to supply electricity in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The plaintiff, Glenwood Light and Water Company (GLWC), had been granted an exclusive franchise by the city to provide electric light services for ten years but was later challenged by the defendant company who also started providing similar services within the same area without any permission from GLWC or city authorities. The court ruled that although GLWC's contract with the city did not explicitly state it held exclusive rights, its language implied exclusivity due to certain obligations imposed on them such as maintaining service continuously throughout their term of agreement which would be unreasonable if other competitors were allowed into market during this period. Therefore, it was decided that Mutual Light violated these implicit terms when they began operations within GLWC's territory.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Glenwood Light and Water Company v. Mutual Light, Heat and Power Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Glenwood was incorrect. The dissent believed that the contract between Glenwood and Mutual did not grant an exclusive right to supply electricity within certain boundaries but merely represented a business arrangement for mutual benefit. They contended that this interpretation would not infringe upon any rights granted by state law or interfere with public policy considerations regarding monopolies in public utilities. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on how damages should be calculated if there were indeed a breach of contract, arguing instead for an approach based on actual loss suffered rather than potential profits lost due to competition from another company operating within what was allegedly exclusively contracted territory.