The U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona Copper Company, Limited v. Gillespie in 1912 revolved around a dispute over the validity of mining claims and property rights between the Arizona Copper Company and an individual miner named Gillespie. The court had to determine whether or not certain mining locations were validly located under federal law, as well as if they were subject to possession by the copper company based on prior mineral location rights held by them. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gillespie, stating that his claim was indeed valid because he complied with all necessary requirements for establishing a mine according to federal laws at that time. Furthermore, it was determined that even though the copper company had previous mineral location rights on these lands before they became public domain again due to non-compliance with annual labor requirements; those did not give them any preferential right when such lands opened up for new locations.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona Copper Company, Limited v. Gillespie, it was argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The dissent contended that there was no legal basis for holding a corporation liable for damages caused by an employee's negligence when such actions were outside of their employment scope or duties. They further asserted that corporations should not be held responsible unless they directly authorized or participated in negligent acts causing harm. This view emphasized a strict interpretation of corporate liability principles, arguing against extending them beyond established boundaries without clear legislative intent or precedent.