In the case of Wadkins v. Producers Oil Company, 1912, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for oil drilling rights violated federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Wadkins, had entered into an agreement with Producers Oil Company to drill for oil on his land in exchange for royalties from any discovered oil. However, he later claimed that this agreement was part of a larger scheme by several companies to monopolize the petroleum industry and thus contravened antitrust legislation. The court ruled against Wadkins stating that there wasn't sufficient evidence presented to prove such conspiracy or monopoly existed among these companies as alleged by him.

The dissenting opinion in the Wadkins v. Producers Oil Company case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the nature of oil drilling and production. The dissent pointed out that oil, unlike other minerals such as coal or iron, is not fixed in a specific location but rather flows freely underground across property lines. Therefore, an individual who drills for oil on their own land may inadvertently extract oil from beneath neighboring properties without any intention of trespassing or stealing. This unique characteristic of oil makes it difficult to apply traditional property laws and requires special consideration which the majority did not give. Furthermore, they disagreed with how damages were calculated by arguing that compensation should be based on actual harm suffered rather than potential profits lost due to alleged infringement.