In the case of In re Mayfield, Petitioner (1890), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether or not an individual could be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions during grand jury proceedings. The petitioner, Mayfield, was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury and refused to answer certain questions on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. He was subsequently held in contempt of court and imprisoned until he agreed to testify. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that no person can be compelled in any criminal case "to be a witness against himself," as protected under Fifth Amendment rights; therefore it reversed Mayfield's conviction for contempt of court.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Mayfield, 1890, is not readily available. This could be due to several reasons such as the age of the case or lack of digitization. It's also possible that there was no recorded dissenting opinion for this particular case. The Supreme Court does not always have a dissenting opinion; it only occurs when one or more justices disagree with the majority decision and choose to write their own interpretation and application of law regarding the matter at hand.