In the case of Noble et al. v. Oklahoma City in 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a city's zoning ordinance could not be used to prohibit oil drilling within its limits if it was unreasonable and discriminatory against property rights without serving any substantial public interest. The plaintiffs, owners of an undeveloped plot in Oklahoma City, were denied permission by the city to drill for oil despite having secured all necessary leases and permits from state authorities. The court found that while cities have broad powers to enact zoning laws for health and safety reasons or aesthetic considerations, these powers must still respect private property rights unless there is a clear public necessity involved - which was not demonstrated in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Noble et al. v. Oklahoma City, Justice Stone argued that the city's ordinance did not violate any constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and was within its power to enact such legislation for public safety reasons. He contended that it is within a municipality’s authority to regulate businesses in order to protect citizens from potential harm or nuisance, including regulating where certain businesses can operate. In this case, he believed that Oklahoma City had valid reasons for restricting oil drilling operations within city limits due to concerns about noise pollution and other disturbances associated with these activities. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "due process," arguing instead that it should be understood as protecting individuals from arbitrary government action rather than guaranteeing specific property rights.