In the Flanigan v. Sierra County case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sierra County. The dispute arose when John Flanigan claimed that he was not liable to pay taxes on his mining claims located within the county because they were unpatented and therefore still owned by the federal government. However, according to Nevada state law at that time, all mines and mining claims were subject to taxation unless expressly exempted by law. The court held that while it is true that title remains with the United States until a patent is issued for a mining claim, this does not prevent states from taxing possessory rights to such claims under their general tax laws. Therefore, even though Mr.Flannigan had not yet received patents for his mining properties from the federal government, he was still required to pay property taxes on them as mandated by Nevada's state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Flanigan v. Sierra County, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of law. The justice contended that a county should not be held liable for damages caused by a defect in a public highway unless it had been given prior notice about such defects and failed to act accordingly. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California state law regarding liability for road maintenance, arguing that it did not impose an absolute duty on counties to maintain roads but rather required them only to use reasonable care in doing so. He believed this standard had not been met in this case as there was no evidence presented showing negligence or lack of due diligence on part of Sierra County officials.