The U.S. Supreme Court case Hallenborg v. Cobre Grande Copper Company in 1905 revolved around a dispute over mining claims and property rights. The plaintiff, Hallenborg, argued that the defendant, Cobre Grande Copper Company had unlawfully encroached upon his mining claim known as "Copper Glance Lode". He sought an injunction to prevent further intrusion and damages for past trespasses. However, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that they were rightful owners of the disputed land due to their prior possession and continued use under Arizona's law on adverse possession (a legal doctrine allowing someone who possesses others' real estate for an extended period of time to claim legal title). On appeal by Hallenborg, this decision was upheld by both appellate courts including the Supreme Court which concluded that evidence supported findings about continuous usage by Cobre Grande Copper Company thus validating its ownership claim.

The dissenting opinion in the Hallenborg v. Cobre Grande Copper Company case argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant questions of law involved, particularly regarding whether or not a corporation could be considered a citizen for purposes of jurisdiction and if so, where its citizenship should lie. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions on this matter, arguing that they had been misinterpreted or taken out of context. Furthermore, they felt it was inappropriate to dismiss an appeal simply because it might involve complex legal issues; instead, these issues should be thoroughly examined and resolved by the court.