In the case of Mountain View Mining and Milling Company v. McFadden, 1900, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over mining claims in Idaho. The plaintiff, Mountain View Mining and Milling Company alleged that it had rightful ownership to certain mineral lands based on its compliance with federal laws governing such claims. However, defendant McFadden contested this claim arguing that he held prior rights to these lands through his own compliance with state laws before the plaintiff's acquisition under federal law. The court ruled in favor of McFadden stating that while both parties complied with their respective jurisdictional requirements for acquiring mining rights; priority should be given to those who first comply regardless of whether it is state or federal law they are adhering to.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mountain View Mining and Milling Company v. McFadden argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of mining law. The dissent pointed out that under existing laws, a miner who discovers valuable minerals on public land has an exclusive right to those minerals, even if they extend beneath another person's claim. In this case, Mountain View Mining had discovered a vein of ore extending into land claimed by McFadden; however, the court ruled in favor of McFadden based on his surface rights rather than considering Mountain View’s discovery rights. The dissent believed this ruling contradicted established principles and could potentially discourage future mineral exploration by undermining miners' confidence in their legal protections.