In the case of Hastings et al. v. Selby Oil & Gas Co. et al., 1942, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal district court in Oklahoma had jurisdiction over an action brought by non-resident oil and gas leaseholders against another non-resident corporation for alleged breach of contract and fraud related to leases on Indian lands within that state. The defendants argued that because they were not residents of Oklahoma, the suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(1) of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C.A §41(1)), which grants federal courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions where there is complete diversity between plaintiffs and defendants, it did not matter if none of them resided in Oklahoma as long as one party was diverse from every other party involved in the lawsuit. Therefore, even though neither plaintiff nor defendant resided in Oklahoma, since they were citizens or corporations from different states with a dispute exceeding $3,000 (the amount-in-controversy requirement at that time), this satisfied both conditions necessary for invoking diversity jurisdiction under Section 24(1). Consequently, dismissal based solely on grounds that no parties were domiciled within forum state was improper.

The dissenting opinion in the Hastings et al. v. Selby Oil & Gas Co. et al., 1942 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which held that an oil and gas lease was not terminated due to non-production, contradicted established legal principles regarding property rights and contracts. The dissent pointed out that under common law, if a lessee fails to produce within a specified time frame, it is generally understood as an implicit termination of the lease agreement unless otherwise stated explicitly in the contract terms. Therefore, they believed that by allowing non-productive leases to continue indefinitely without any obligation for production on part of lessees essentially grants them unrestricted control over landowners' properties against their wills or interests - something fundamentally unfair and unjust from both contractual and property rights perspectives.