In the 1917 case of Jones et al. v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Company, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and mineral extraction. The plaintiffs, Jones and others, owned surface land in West Virginia while defendant Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Company held mining rights to coal underneath said land. The company's mining activities caused substantial damage to the surface estate due to subsidence (sinking or settling), leading Jones et al., as owners of that estate, to sue for damages. The central issue was whether or not the deed granting mining rights also implicitly granted permission for such damaging extraction methods without liability for resulting harm done to the surface estate. In its decision, however, the court ruled against Jones et al., asserting that their deed did indeed grant such permissions implicitly by allowing "the full enjoyment" of coal removal operations - even if this resulted in significant damage on ground level.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jones et al. v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to adequately consider state law. The dissent emphasized that West Virginia law, where the dispute originated, did not recognize a right to damages for purely emotional distress absent physical injury or property damage. They contended that this principle should have guided the Court’s interpretation of federal employer liability laws at issue in this case as well. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that mental anguish could be considered an "injury" under these laws without any accompanying physical harm or financial loss - a departure from prior decisions which required some form of tangible harm for recovery under such statutes.