The U.S. Supreme Court case Enterprise Mining Company v. Rico-Aspen Consolidated Mining Company in 1896 revolved around a dispute over mining rights and property boundaries between the two companies in Colorado. The plaintiff, Enterprise Mining Company, claimed that it had rightful ownership of certain minerals found within its land claim based on a federal statute which granted such rights to those who discovered valuable mineral deposits on public lands. However, the defendant, Rico-Aspen Consolidated Mining Company argued that they held legal title to these same minerals due to their prior possession of an adjacent plot of land from which they were extracting ore via underground tunnels extending into the disputed area under common law principles known as "extralateral rights". The court ruled in favor of Rico-Aspen stating that while federal statutes did grant exclusive right to mine surface deposits for those who first located them; this did not extend beneath the surface where veins ran into adjoining properties owned by others.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Enterprise Mining Company v. Rico-Aspen Consolidated Mining Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found in favor of Rico-Aspen, was flawed. The dissent contended that there were significant errors made by the trial court regarding both procedure and interpretation of mining law. Specifically, it was argued that the trial judge had incorrectly instructed jurors on how they should interpret key aspects of mining law relevant to this case - instructions which may have unduly influenced their verdict. Furthermore, it was suggested that certain evidence presented at trial had been improperly admitted and prejudiced against Enterprise Mining Company unfairly. Therefore, according to this dissenting view, these procedural missteps warranted a reversal or retrial rather than an affirmation of the initial judgment.