The Minnesota Iron Company v. Kline case in 1905 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights. The Minnesota Iron Company claimed that it had purchased the disputed property from its original owner, who was granted the land under an act of Congress in 1850. However, Kline argued that he acquired the same piece of land through a patent issued by the United States government in 1892 and thus held superior title to it. The Supreme Court ruled against Minnesota Iron Company, stating that even though there may have been errors or irregularities with how Kline obtained his patent, these issues did not invalidate his claim to ownership because they were internal matters within governmental departments and could not be used as grounds for challenging patents once they were issued. Therefore, despite having bought what they believed was validly owned property from its initial grantee under Congressional Act provisions, Minnesota Iron Co.'s claim fell short compared to Kline's later-acquired but officially patented right.

The dissenting opinion in the Minnesota Iron Company v. Kline case argued that the plaintiff, Mr. Kline, was not entitled to damages as he had willingly assumed the risks associated with his employment at a mine owned by Minnesota Iron Company. The justice opined that it was common knowledge that mining is a dangerous occupation and anyone who chooses such work does so with an understanding of its inherent hazards. Therefore, according to this perspective, any injury sustained during such risky employment should be considered an occupational hazard rather than grounds for liability on part of the employer. This viewpoint also emphasized that employers cannot possibly eliminate all dangers from high-risk jobs like mining; hence they shouldn't be held responsible when accidents occur despite taking reasonable safety measures.