In the 1917 case of Ketcham v. Burr et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Ketcham, claimed that he had been defrauded by the defendants who sold him land without disclosing its true value due to oil deposits beneath it. He sought to rescind his purchase and recover damages for fraud. However, the court ruled against Ketcham on both counts. The court found no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment by Burr and others involved in selling the property; they were under no obligation to inform Ketcham about potential oil reserves as they themselves were not aware of them at that time. Furthermore, even if there was an omission or misrepresentation regarding this fact, it would not have constituted actionable fraud since such information is considered speculative rather than material facts related directly to property's current condition or value. Therefore, while acknowledging that full disclosure is generally desirable in business transactions especially involving real estate purchases - failure thereof does not always amount to legal fraud unless specific conditions are met which weren't present here according to their judgment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ketcham v. Burr et al., 1917, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Ketcham's claim was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have been corrected on appeal. They contended that these mistakes had unfairly prejudiced Ketcham and denied him his right to a fair trial. Specifically, they disagreed with how evidence was handled during the proceedings and felt it led to an unjust outcome for Mr.Ketcham. They also took issue with certain jury instructions given by the judge at trial, arguing they were misleading or confusing for jurors which could have affected their judgment in reaching a verdict against Ketcham.