In the case of Oklahoma City v. McMaster in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and municipal authority. The city of Oklahoma had sold certain lands to McMaster under an ordinance that allowed it to sell lots for less than their appraised value if they were used for manufacturing purposes within a year. However, when McMaster failed to use the land as stipulated, the city sought to reclaim it. The court held that although municipalities have broad powers over public property management, these powers are not unlimited and must be exercised reasonably and fairly without infringing upon individual rights or violating contracts' obligations. Therefore, since there was no provision in the contract allowing reclamation due to non-compliance with usage terms by purchaser (McMaster), nor any statutory law granting such power explicitly or implicitly; henceforth Oklahoma City could not take back possession of said lands from him.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma City v. McMaster, it was argued that the city's actions were not in violation of any constitutional rights. The justice believed that Oklahoma City had acted within its power when it passed an ordinance to regulate and control certain businesses, including those selling intoxicating liquors. He further stated that such regulations are necessary for public safety and welfare, especially considering the potential harm associated with alcohol consumption. Moreover, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process clause under Fourteenth Amendment as applied to this case; asserting instead that due process does not prohibit a state from using its police powers to protect public health or morals unless there is clear evidence of arbitrary action or abuse of power by authorities involved.