In the case of Henrietta Mining and Milling Company v. Johnson (1898), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson, who had claimed that he was entitled to a certain piece of mining property under federal law. The court held that while the plaintiff, Henrietta Mining and Milling Company, had obtained a patent for this land from the United States government, it did not have exclusive rights to mine there because it failed to comply with all necessary legal requirements before obtaining said patent. Specifically, they didn't follow proper procedures regarding posting notice about their claim on-site or publishing such notice in local newspapers as required by law. Therefore, since these steps were not taken prior to filing for a patent on this land with mineral deposits present - which would've given others an opportunity to contest their claim if desired - then they could not legally exclude others from mining there too after receiving their patent grant.

In the dissenting opinion for Henrietta Mining and Milling Company v. Johnson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Johnson was incorrect. The dissent focused on two main points: first, they believed that there had been an error in interpreting mining law; secondly, they disagreed with how evidence had been handled during trial proceedings. They contended that under existing mining laws, Henrietta Mining and Milling Company should have retained rights to certain mineral deposits found beneath their property even if those minerals extended into land owned by Johnson. Furthermore, they criticized the way evidence from surveyors who mapped out these underground deposits was dismissed by the courts without proper consideration or examination of its validity. In conclusion, this minority group of justices felt strongly that both legal interpretation and procedural fairness were compromised in this case.