In the 1896 case of Maish v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over mining claims in Arizona. The plaintiff, Maish, argued that he had rightful ownership to certain mining properties based on his compliance with federal law regarding mineral deposits on public lands. However, the defendant claimed that they held legal title to these same properties under territorial laws of Arizona which allowed for adverse possession - a method of acquiring property by using it openly and continuously for five years without protest from its owner. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Maish stating that federal law took precedence over state or territorial laws when dealing with public lands containing valuable minerals. It was determined that only Congress has authority to make rules and regulations concerning such land; therefore any claim made under local statutes like those allowing adverse possession would be invalid if not aligned with federal legislation. This decision reinforced the supremacy clause within U.S Constitution which establishes Federal Law as 'the supreme law of the land'. It also clarified how rights to mine valuable minerals on public lands are established and protected under US Mining Laws.

The Maish v. Arizona case does not have a publicly available dissenting opinion recorded in the legal databases, making it impossible to provide a summary of such. It's important to note that not all Supreme Court cases have dissenting opinions; they only occur when one or more justices disagree with the majority ruling. In this particular case, there might not have been any disagreement among the justices, hence no recorded dissenting opinion.