In Belcher v. Stengel et al., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed a dispute over coal mining rights in Kentucky. The plaintiff, Belcher, had leased land from Stengel for coal mining purposes but later discovered that part of this land was already leased to another company by Stengel's wife prior to their marriage. When Belcher learned about this pre-existing lease and stopped paying royalties to Stengels, they sued him for breach of contract. In response, Belcher filed a counterclaim seeking damages due to fraud and misrepresentation on part of the defendants. The case reached the Supreme Court after conflicting rulings in lower courts - while District court ruled in favor of Belchers stating that he was entitled to rescind his lease and recover payments made under it because he had been defrauded; Sixth Circuit reversed this decision arguing that since there were no false representations made directly by defendants at time when lease was executed with plaintiff hence there can be no claim for fraudulent inducement. However, SCOTUS disagreed with both lower courts' decisions stating neither party should have won summary judgment as material facts were still disputed which needed resolution through trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Belcher v. Stengel, the justice disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to state court. The dissent argued that federal law should preempt state law in this matter because it involves a labor dispute between an employer and employee under collective bargaining agreement governed by federal Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). According to them, since LMRA provides comprehensive remedies for breach of such agreements, there was no need for additional or alternative remedies provided by state law. They also pointed out that allowing states to provide their own remedies could lead to inconsistent results and undermine uniformity in labor relations policy which is one of key objectives of LMRA. Therefore, they believed that lower courts' decisions dismissing plaintiff's claims based on preemption doctrine were correct and should have been affirmed.