The Hawley v. Diller case in 1899 revolved around a dispute over mining claims in Washington state. The plaintiff, Hawley, claimed that the defendant, Diller, had unlawfully seized his quartz lode mining claim and sought to recover damages for the extracted minerals. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds of insufficient evidence proving ownership of said claim at the time of alleged trespassing by Diller. It was found that while Hawley did file an application for patent on this land with U.S Land Office before Diller's intrusion occurred; he failed to comply with statutory requirements such as posting notice of his application on site or publishing it in a newspaper within 60 days after filing - thus making his claim invalid during period when trespass happened according to law then prevailing under Revised Statutes §2325 & §2326 (1878). Furthermore, even if these conditions were met later; they could not retroactively validate earlier periods where non-compliance existed thereby preventing any recovery from those times.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawley v. Diller, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Mr. Hawley’s appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were indeed federal questions involved in this case which should have been addressed by the Supreme Court, contrary to what the majority held. They contended that since Mr. Hawley claimed his rights under a U.S patent and insisted those rights had been violated by state court decisions, these constituted substantial claims under federal law warranting review by this court. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's view that no such claim existed or if it did exist then it was frivolous and not deserving consideration at all.