Glendy Burke brought a case against Robert McKay in the Supreme Court. She argued that she had been wrongfully evicted from her home by McKay, and sought damages for the loss of her property. The court ruled in favor of Burke, finding that she was entitled to compensation for the wrongful eviction as well as other losses suffered due to it. In addition, they found that even though there was no written agreement between them regarding rent or possession of the house, an implied contract existed between them which gave Burke rights over it and thus protected her from being unlawfully removed without notice or cause. This ruling set an important precedent establishing tenants' rights when dealing with landlords who may be acting unfairly or illegally towards their renters.

In the case of Glendy Burke v. Robert McKay, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff's claim should have been heard by a jury rather than decided by the court. He noted that under Mississippi law, when an action is brought for damages resulting from personal injury or trespass to property, it must be tried before a jury unless both parties agree otherwise. In this case, there was no such agreement and thus it should have gone to trial with a jury deciding on liability and damages. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that even if there had been an agreement between the parties waiving their right to trial by jury in this instance, such agreements were not valid as they violated public policy considerations regarding access to justice through juries of one's peers. As such he concluded that since no waiver had occurred here and since Mississippi law required trials involving personal injuries or trespasses against property go before juries without exception then Glendy Burke’s claim should have been heard by one too.