In the Keyes v. Eureka Consolidated Mining Company case of 1894, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over mining rights in Nevada. The plaintiff, Keyes, alleged that his mining claim was being infringed upon by the defendant's (Eureka Consolidated Mining Company) operations which were extracting ore from beneath his property through an adjoining mine. The court held that while a landowner has exclusive right to everything above and below their property surface within their vertical boundaries, this does not extend to veins of mineral deposits extending into their land from neighboring properties at depth. Therefore, if a vein originates in one person’s property and extends into another’s at depth below ground level, both parties have equal right to extract minerals along its course within their respective boundaries without regard for how much is taken out from either side.

In the dissenting opinion for Keyes v. Eureka Consolidated Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply established principles of mining law and property rights. The dissent disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "apex" in relation to mineral veins, arguing that a vein apex should not be considered part of a claim unless it is within its vertical boundaries. They also contended that just because an apex extends into another claim does not mean one has right over all minerals beneath said apex; such interpretation could lead to unjust enrichment at expense of others' rightful claims. Furthermore, they criticized the court’s ruling as being too broad and potentially leading to unnecessary litigation due to lack of clarity on what constitutes 'extralateral rights'. Lastly, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on mining industry by creating uncertainty around property rights.