In the case of LEH et al. v. General Petroleum Corp. et al., 1965, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal court in California had jurisdiction over a dispute involving oil drilling rights off the coast of Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs were two Lebanese corporations who claimed that they held exclusive drilling rights granted by Saudi Arabia and that General Petroleum Corporation (a subsidiary of Mobil Oil) had infringed on these rights by entering into an agreement with Saudi Arabia for exploration and extraction activities in the same area. The defendants argued that U.S courts did not have jurisdiction over this matter as it involved foreign entities and actions taking place outside U.S territory, while plaintiffs contended that since some decisions related to this contract were made within California, American courts should be able to hear their claim. The Supreme Court ruled against the Lebanese companies stating that even though some corporate decisions may have been made within U.S borders, those alone do not provide sufficient grounds for asserting jurisdiction over disputes concerning property or contractual rights located entirely outside United States territory.

The dissenting opinion in the LEH et al. v. GENERAL PETROLEUM CORP. et al., 1965 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found General Petroleum Corporation not guilty of violating antitrust laws, was incorrect and inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar cases. The dissenters believed that General Petroleum had indeed violated antitrust laws by engaging in price-fixing activities and using its market dominance to unfairly suppress competition within the oil industry. They also criticized the majority for failing to adequately consider evidence presented during trial showing General Petroleum's anti-competitive practices, arguing this oversight led them to reach an unjust conclusion.