In the 1893 case of Corinne Mill, Canal and Stock Company v. Toponce, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over water rights in Utah. The plaintiff, Corinne Mill, Canal and Stock Company claimed that they had prior appropriation to use water from Bear River for their milling operations. They argued that Alexander Toponce's subsequent diversion of this water for his mining operation infringed on their rights. However, Toponce contended that he was entitled to divert the river because he used it beneficially and did not waste any part of it. The court ruled in favor of Corinne Mill by upholding the doctrine of prior appropriation which states "first in time is first in right". This means whoever first puts a natural resource like water to beneficial use has superior claim over later users regardless if they also put it into beneficial use or not. Therefore, even though both parties were using the river’s waters productively without wastage; since Corrine Mill was there first - its claim took precedence.

In the dissenting opinion for Corinne Mill, Canal and Stock Company v. Toponc, 1893, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Toponc was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the case had been handled at trial level which should have led to a reversal of the judgment. They pointed out procedural errors such as improper jury instructions and evidentiary rulings by the trial judge which they felt unfairly prejudiced against Corinne Mill, Canal and Stock Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain laws were interpreted by both lower courts and their fellow Supreme Court Justices in reaching their decisions. In particular, they took issue with what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of water rights law that favored individual users over corporations like Corinne Mill who held prior claims on those resources.