The U.S. Supreme Court case Bushnell v. Crooke Mining and Smelting Company in 1893 revolved around a dispute over mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Bushnell, claimed that the defendant company had illegally encroached on his mining claim and extracted valuable ore from it without permission or compensation. He sought damages for this alleged trespassing and theft of resources. However, the court ruled against him based on evidence showing that he did not have exclusive ownership of the disputed area at the time when the supposed infringement took place because he failed to comply with federal laws governing such claims by not performing annual labor or improvements worth $100 per year as required by law to maintain possession of a claim after its location has been made known publicly.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bushnell v. Crooke Mining and Smelting Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of the defendant mining company, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during trial proceedings that should have resulted in a new trial for plaintiff Bushnell. They contended that certain evidence presented by Bushnell was improperly excluded from consideration by the jury, thereby denying him a fair opportunity to make his case against Crooke Mining and Smelting Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with how instructions were given to jurors regarding their evaluation of other key pieces of evidence related to alleged fraudulent activities conducted by representatives of the mining company. In sum, these justices felt strongly enough about these perceived procedural missteps and their potential impact on achieving justice for all parties involved as to voice their opposition publicly through this formal dissent.