In the case of McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., 1901, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over mining rights in Alaska. The plaintiff, McKinley Creek Mining Company, claimed that it had obtained valid title to certain mining claims before they were acquired by the defendant, Alaska United Mining Company. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim and ruled in favor of the defendant. The main issue at hand involved determining whether or not proper procedures were followed when obtaining these mining rights under federal law - specifically if notice requirements for staking a claim had been met and if work on said claims had commenced within required timeframes. The court held that while some procedural errors may have occurred during initial acquisition of these claims by both parties involved; such mistakes did not invalidate subsequent transfers of ownership nor did they negate any improvements made upon land once possessed legally according to existing laws at time transactions took place. Therefore due to lack of convincing proof from plaintiff's side showing their prior rightful possession over disputed territories; judgement went towards defendants who managed successfully demonstrate their lawful entitlements based on presented evidences which included deeds indicating transferal processes along with testimonies confirming actual operations conducted therein.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which favored Alaska United Mining Company, was incorrect due to an improper application of mining law principles. The dissent contended that the original claim by McKinley Creek Mining should have been recognized as valid because it complied with all legal requirements for establishing a mining claim under federal law at that time. They believed this despite subsequent discovery and development activities conducted by Alaska United on adjacent land areas after their initial filing date. In essence, they felt that first-in-time should be first-in-right when it comes to mineral rights claims and any later developments or discoveries shouldn't affect those established rights.