In the case of Luckett v. Delpark, Inc., et al., 1925, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and lease agreements. The plaintiff, Luckett, had leased land to Delpark for oil drilling purposes but later claimed that they were not entitled to drill because they had failed to pay rent on time as per their agreement. However, Delpark argued that they were still within their right to drill since there was no explicit clause in the contract stating that late payment would result in termination of drilling rights. The lower courts ruled in favor of Delpark and this decision was appealed up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling by emphasizing on contractual interpretation principles which state that any ambiguity should be resolved against party who drafted it (in this case Luckett). They noted that if Luckett wanted timely payment to be a condition for maintaining drilling rights then he should have explicitly stated so in his contract with Delpark.

In the dissenting opinion for Luckett v. Delpark, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting gambling on horse races except at licensed tracks violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law unfairly discriminated against small businesses and individuals who wished to engage in betting activities but did not have access to a licensed track. They also contended that there was no rational basis for allowing some forms of gambling while banning others, as all types of wagering involve similar risks and potential harms. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on police power justifications for upholding discriminatory laws, arguing that such reasoning could be used to justify any form of arbitrary or unfair legislation.