In the case of Woodside v. Beckham in 1909, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights. The plaintiff, Woodside, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from Beckham's father before his death. However, after the father's passing, Beckham asserted that he was now the rightful owner of this property due to inheritance laws and denied any knowledge or approval of his father’s sale to Woodside. The main issue at hand was whether an oral agreement for selling real estate could be enforced if it were not put into writing as required by Kentucky law (the Statute of Frauds). In its decision, the court ruled in favor of Beckham stating that under Kentucky law all agreements concerning real estate must be written down to be enforceable unless there is part performance which takes such contract out of operation statute frauds - something which did not occur here according to evidence presented during trial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Woodside v. Beckham, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns infringed upon free speech rights. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the First Amendment by limiting corporate entities' ability to participate in public discourse and influence policy decisions. They contended that corporations should be treated as individuals under the Constitution and thus have similar rights, including freedom of speech. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that preventing potential corruption justified such restrictions on political contributions; instead, they suggested implementing stricter regulations or transparency measures rather than outright bans would better serve this purpose without infringing upon constitutional rights.