The U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Amy and Silversmith Mining Company in 1893 revolved around a dispute over mining rights in Nevada. The plaintiff, King, claimed that the defendants had unlawfully extracted ore from his mine, infringing on his property rights under the federal mining laws of 1866 and 1872 which allowed individuals to claim exclusive right to extract minerals from public lands if they discovered them first. However, the defendants argued that their extraction was lawful as it occurred within their own vertical lines extending downward from their surface boundaries (the apex rule). The court ruled in favor of the defendants by upholding this "apex rule", stating that whoever owns or controls the apex is entitled to follow its vein downward even if it extends into another's property below ground level provided no extralateral rights are violated.

In the dissenting opinion for King v. Amy and Silversmith Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Amy and Silversmith Mining Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made by the trial court which should have led to a reversal of its judgment. They contended that evidence presented at trial clearly showed King had rightful ownership over certain mining properties due to his prior possession and continuous operation on them, contrary to what the majority concluded based on their interpretation of mining laws. Furthermore, they disagreed with how testimonies from witnesses were evaluated; arguing some credible ones supporting King’s claim were disregarded while others favoring Amy and Silversmith received undue weightage. This disagreement extended also towards procedural matters where they felt several rulings during proceedings disadvantaged King unfairly.