In Bragg v. Weaver et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a landowner could be compensated for damages caused by mining operations on adjacent property. The plaintiff, Bragg, owned surface rights to a piece of land in West Virginia while the defendants, Weaver and others, held mineral rights to an adjoining tract. They had excavated coal from their property which resulted in subsidence damage to Bragg's land due to undermining. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants based on common law principles that allowed owners of mineral estates absolute right to mine without liability for resulting damage. However, upon appeal at the Supreme Court level it was decided that this principle did not apply when separate parties own surface and sub-surface estates respectively; instead each party has certain obligations towards one another’s interests as per American jurisprudence norms. Thus reversing previous judgment rendered by Circuit Court of Appeals Fifth circuit ,the case was remanded back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bragg v. Weaver et al., 1919, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring compulsory education was an overreach of government power and infringed upon individual liberties. The dissenters believed that parents should have the right to decide how their children are educated without interference from the state. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of this power by future governments, arguing that such laws could be used as a means for indoctrination or social engineering. Furthermore, they questioned whether it was within the jurisdiction of federal courts to rule on matters related to education policy which they considered more appropriately handled at a local level.