Noonan v. Caledonia Mining Company is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Noonan, and the defendant, Caledonia Mining Company, over a mining claim in the state of California. Noonan had filed a claim for a mining location in California, but the claim was rejected by the local mining district court. Noonan then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of California, which also rejected the claim. Noonan then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the decision of the California Supreme Court was correct. The Court found that the mining district court had properly rejected Noonan's claim because it was not in compliance with the mining laws of California. The Court also held that the California Supreme Court had correctly interpreted the mining laws of the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court, finding that the mining district court had properly rejected Noonan's claim. The Court also held that the California Supreme Court had correctly interpreted the mining laws of the state.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Noonan v. Caledonia Mining Company, arguing that the majority had erred in its decision to deny compensation for damages caused by a mining company’s negligence. He argued that under California law, an individual was entitled to recover damages from another party if they were injured as a result of their negligence or carelessness. In this case, he argued that the plaintiff should be compensated for his injuries due to the defendant's careless and negligent actions which resulted in damage being done to his property. Justice Field further noted that while it may have been difficult for the plaintiff to prove actual damages suffered as a result of these actions, there was still sufficient evidence presented at trial which showed how much harm had been done and thus warranted some form of compensation from the defendant mining company. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded by stating that denying any sort of recompense would be unjust and contrary to established legal principles regarding tort liability in California courts at this time period.