In the 1918 case of Butte & Superior Copper Company, Limited v. Clark-Montana Realty Company et al., the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over mining rights in Montana. The plaintiff, Butte & Superior Copper Company, claimed that it had exclusive rights to mine copper ore beneath certain properties owned by the defendants (Clark-Montana Realty and others). However, these defendants argued that they also held some subsurface mineral rights under an old Spanish land grant which predated Montana's statehood. The court ruled in favor of the defendant realty company based on its interpretation of both federal law and specific provisions within Montana's constitution regarding mineral ownership. It concluded that while surface property owners generally have exclusive right to minerals found beneath their land according to common law principles; this did not apply here due to unique circumstances surrounding historical Spanish land grants. This decision clarified how courts should interpret conflicting claims between surface property owners and those claiming subsurface mineral rights especially when such disputes involve lands originally granted under non-U.S jurisdictions but later incorporated into U.S territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Butte & Superior Copper Company, Limited v. Clark-Montana Realty Company et al., Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to award damages based on a hypothetical situation was unjustified and speculative. He contended that there was no concrete evidence of harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff due to defendant’s actions, thus making it inappropriate to grant relief based on conjecture. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of mining law in relation to surface rights and underground extraction methods, arguing that such an expansive view could lead to unnecessary litigation and economic inefficiency within the mining industry. Ultimately, he believed that this case should have been resolved through negotiation between parties rather than court intervention.