The U.S. Supreme Court case Iron Cliffs Company v. Negaunee Iron Company in 1904 revolved around a dispute over mining rights and property boundaries between the two companies in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The plaintiff, Iron Cliffs Company, claimed that Negaunee Iron Company had unlawfully extracted iron ore from its land and sought compensation for damages. However, the defendant argued that they were operating within their own property lines based on an old government survey map which was later found to be inaccurate due to magnetic disturbances affecting compass readings during the original surveying process. The court ruled in favor of the defendant by applying "the doctrine of practical location," stating that if a boundary line has been accepted and acted upon by parties involved for many years without dispute, it should not be disturbed even if it is discovered later to have been inaccurately drawn initially. Therefore, despite evidence showing errors in initial surveys leading to encroachment onto plaintiff’s territory by defendants while extracting minerals; since both parties had operated under these assumed boundaries without objection for several years prior - this long-standing acceptance effectively established those as legitimate boundaries.

The dissenting opinion in the Iron Cliffs Company v. Negaunee Iron Company case argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider important aspects of Michigan law, which should have been applied since both companies were incorporated in Michigan. The dissenting justices believed that under this state law, a corporation could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence unless there was proof of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "gross negligence," arguing that it should only apply to actions so reckless and dangerous as to indicate a complete disregard for human life or safety. Furthermore, they contended that even if gross negligence had occurred, any resulting damage would still need to be foreseeable and directly linked to the negligent act - conditions they did not believe were met in this case.