The Griswold v. Hazard case in 1890 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of certain mining properties in California. The plaintiff, Edward W. Griswold, claimed that he was entitled to these properties based on an agreement made with one of the defendants, William B. Carr and his associates who were also part owners of the mine. However, due to various complications including Carr's death and subsequent legal issues involving his estate and heirs (the other defendants), this agreement could not be fulfilled as planned. Griswold filed suit against George Ainsworth Hazard et al., seeking specific performance or damages for breach of contract from them as successors-in-interest to Carr’s property rights under their original agreement with him. However, after reviewing all evidence presented before it - which included extensive documentation about complex financial transactions related to this matter - the Supreme Court ruled against Griswold stating that there was no sufficient proof showing any fraudulent intent by any party involved nor did they find enough grounds supporting his claim for either specific performance or damages.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Griswold v. Hazard argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Connecticut law banning contraceptives infringed upon individual liberties and privacy rights. The dissenters believed that this ruling was an overreach of government power, arguing that it violated the Constitution's implicit guarantee of personal autonomy in matters relating to marriage, family life, and sexual relationships. They contended that decisions about contraception should be left up to individuals rather than dictated by state legislation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on public health due to restricted access to birth control methods.