In the 1904 case of Hyde v. Shine, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and mining claims in California. The plaintiff, Hyde, argued that he had rightful ownership over certain mining properties based on an 1866 law that allowed individuals to stake claims on mineral-rich public lands. However, the defendant, Shine, countered this claim by asserting his own right to these properties through purchase from previous owners who also staked their claim under the same law but before Hyde did. The court sided with Shine stating that while both parties made valid claims under federal law; priority should be given to those who first discovered and worked upon such mines as per state laws which were not superseded or invalidated by federal statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Hyde v. Shine, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from fishing in Florida waters violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. The dissent contended that this clause guarantees citizens of each state all privileges and immunities granted to citizens in other states, including access to natural resources such as fish. It was further argued that while states have authority over their own natural resources, they cannot discriminate against out-of-state residents by denying them equal access under reasonable regulations comparable with those applied to its own residents. The dissent also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous case law on this issue, arguing instead that these cases supported an expansive reading of interstate commerce rights rather than a narrow one allowing for discriminatory practices based on residency status.