In the case of Guffey v. Smith (1914), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving coal mining rights in Kentucky. The plaintiff, James M. Guffey, had entered into an agreement with Susannah Smith and her husband to lease their land for coal mining operations. However, after her husband's death, Mrs. Smith claimed that she was not legally bound by this contract as it was made without her explicit consent or understanding due to illiteracy and lack of business experience at the time of signing. The court held that while there may have been some degree of undue influence exerted upon Mrs. Smith during negotiations, she did not provide sufficient evidence to prove fraud or duress which would invalidate the contract entirely; hence it remained enforceable under law. Furthermore, since Mr.Guffey had already invested significantly in developing infrastructure for mining operations based on good faith reliance on this agreement before any objections were raised by Mrs.Smith , he was entitled to compensation for his losses if denied access to mine. This ruling established important precedents regarding contractual obligations and protections against fraudulent practices within commercial agreements.

The dissenting opinion in the Guffey v. Smith case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law requiring coal operators to pay their miners at least twice a month was an overreach of state power and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters believed that this law interfered with private contracts between employers and employees, which should be protected under freedom of contract rights. They also contended that it was not within the state's police powers to regulate such matters as they did not directly affect public health or safety, nor were they related to preventing fraud or exploitation. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how different industries were treated under similar laws, questioning why coal miners specifically needed more frequent payments than other workers who might face equal if not greater economic hardships.