In the case of Lomax v. Pickering in 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in Nevada. The plaintiff, Lomax, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by Pickering who was extracting valuable minerals from it without permission or compensation to him. The court found that while both parties had initially agreed to work together on developing the mine under a partnership agreement, this arrangement ended when Lomax sold his interest to another party without notifying Pickering first as required by their contract terms. Therefore, even though Lomax still owned part of the land where the mine was located after selling his stake in it, he no longer held any rights over its mineral resources because these were tied specifically to his share in their joint venture which he had disposed off unilaterally against their agreement's provisions for such transactions between them.

In the dissenting opinion for Lomax v. Pickering, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that an individual could not be sued in a state where they did not reside or have property - undermined the principles of justice and fairness. The dissenting justices believed that this interpretation of jurisdictional rules was overly rigid and failed to consider evolving legal norms around personal jurisdiction. They contended that if someone committed a wrongful act against another person, they should be able to be sued wherever their victim resided. This would ensure victims had access to justice without needing to travel or face additional burdens. Furthermore, they suggested such flexibility would reflect modern realities where actions taken in one place can cause harm elsewhere due to advancements in technology and transportation.