In the case of Big Vein Coal Company of West Virginia v. Read, 1912, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a coal company could be held responsible for damages caused by mining operations on adjacent property. The plaintiff, Read, owned land next to that operated by Big Vein Coal and claimed that their mining activities had caused subsidence damage to his property. The court ruled in favor of Read stating that even though there were no physical intrusions onto his land from the mining operation itself, he still suffered harm due to its effects (subsidence). This ruling established an important precedent in American law regarding liability for indirect damages resulting from industrial activity.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Big Vein Coal Company of West Virginia v. Read, it was argued that there were significant errors in the majority's interpretation and application of law. The dissenting justices believed that the lower court had correctly ruled in favor of Big Vein Coal Company based on existing legal principles regarding property rights and contracts. They contended that Read did not have a valid claim to damages because he had willingly entered into an agreement with Big Vein knowing full well about their mining operations underneath his land. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such underground mining constituted a trespass or violation of property rights, arguing instead that this was a common practice accepted by both parties at the time when contract was made.