In the Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company v. Hanley case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over mining rights in Idaho. The plaintiff, Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company, claimed that it had acquired title to certain mining claims through adverse possession. However, the defendant John Hanley argued that he was entitled to these claims based on his prior location of them under federal law. The court found in favor of Hanley stating that while state laws govern property disputes generally; when it comes to mineral lands owned by the United States government - as was this case - federal law applies exclusively until patent is issued from such government ownership. Therefore, even though Empire State-Idaho Mining may have occupied and worked upon these lands for several years without challenge or objection from any quarter including Mr.Hanley himself; they could not acquire title via adverse possession because their occupancy did not meet requirements set forth by Congress regarding acquisition of mineral land titles.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Empire State-Idaho Mining and Developing Company v. Hanley argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar matters. The dissent believed that a mining claim, once established under federal law, should be treated as real property subject to state laws regarding inheritance and transfer of ownership. They contended that this interpretation would provide greater legal certainty for miners and their heirs or assigns by ensuring consistent application of laws across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that a mining claim could be invalidated due to noncompliance with certain procedural requirements after its initial establishment, arguing instead for a more flexible approach which took into account factors such as good faith efforts to comply or substantial compliance over time.