In the case of Linford v. Ellison in 1894, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and mining rights in Utah. The plaintiff, Linford, claimed that he had obtained valid title to certain lands under federal law which allowed private citizens to purchase mineral-rich public lands for development. However, the defendant, Ellison argued that he had prior claim on these lands based on his pre-existing mining operations there before they were sold by the government. The court ruled in favor of Ellison stating that although Linford may have purchased these lands from the government legally under federal law; this did not invalidate or extinguish any existing property rights held by others (like Ellison) who were already using those same lands for their own purposes at time of sale.

In the dissenting opinion for Linford v. Ellison, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Ellison was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which should have led to a reversal of the original verdict. They contended that certain evidence presented by Linford had been improperly excluded and other evidence admitted against him unfairly prejudiced his case. Furthermore, they disagreed with how jury instructions were handled, arguing they favored Ellison excessively and did not provide an impartial explanation of law applicable to facts in dispute. In their view, these procedural missteps denied Linford a fair trial and thus violated his constitutional rights.