In the case of Yeiser v. Dysart, et al., 1924, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over an oil and gas lease on land in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Yeiser, claimed that he had been defrauded by the defendants who allegedly conspired to obtain his property through fraudulent means. He argued that they misrepresented facts about their intentions for drilling operations on his land which led him to agree to terms unfavorable to him. However, the court ruled against Yeiser stating there was no evidence of fraud or conspiracy as alleged by him. The court held that even if there were misrepresentations made by one party during negotiations leading up to a contract (which wasn't proven), it would not be enough grounds for rescission unless those misrepresentations were material and induced consent from another party under false pretenses - neither of which could be established in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Yeiser v. Dysart, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law allowing women to be exempted from jury service unless they specifically requested inclusion violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The dissenting justices contended that this exemption created an unfair and unequal system of justice by excluding a significant portion of society from participating in juries. They believed that such exclusion could lead to biased outcomes since only men or those few women who opted-in would decide cases, thereby not representing a fair cross-section of community perspectives. Furthermore, they asserted that this law perpetuated gender discrimination by implying women were less capable or less needed in performing civic duties like serving on juries compared to their male counterparts.