In the case of Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Company (1915), the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for oil drilling rights violated federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Lancaster, had entered into an agreement with Kathleen Oil Company that granted them exclusive drilling rights on his land in exchange for royalties from any oil discovered. However, he later sued the company claiming that this agreement constituted a monopoly and thus violated antitrust legislation. The court ruled in favor of Kathleen Oil Company stating that such contracts were not monopolistic as they did not restrict trade or competition but rather encouraged it by providing incentives for exploration and production of resources. Furthermore, it was noted that these agreements are common practice within the industry and essential to its operation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lancaster v. Kathleen Oil Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider the rights of property owners. The dissenting justices believed that oil companies should not be allowed to drill for oil on a person's land without their permission, even if they own adjacent properties where oil has been discovered. They contended that allowing such actions would essentially grant these companies an unrestricted right to exploit natural resources at the expense of individual property rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "waste" in this context, arguing it should only apply when there is actual physical waste or destruction occurring on a property rather than simply potential economic loss due to unextracted resources.