In the case of Paine v. Copper Belle Mining Company of Arizona, 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a lower court had jurisdiction over a dispute involving mining property in Arizona. The plaintiff, Paine, claimed that he owned shares in the defendant company and accused them of mismanagement and fraud. He sought an injunction to prevent further alleged misconduct by the company's directors and requested an accounting for damages. However, all parties involved were residents of New York where also most business transactions took place. The Supreme Court ruled that although some aspects related to ownership occurred within Arizona (where mines were located), it did not provide sufficient grounds for federal jurisdiction as per Section 24 Judicial Code which requires complete diversity between plaintiffs' and defendants' state citizenships or alienage status for federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity-of-citizenship grounds. Therefore, despite having elements relating to interstate commerce due to location of mines being different from residence state; this alone couldn't establish federal question jurisdiction under Article III section 2 clause1 US Constitution either because primary issue revolved around internal affairs like corporate governance rather than interstate commerce itself. Thus ruling favored Copper Belle Mining Company stating lower court lacked necessary jurisdiction hence dismissing Paine’s suit without prejudice allowing him potential refile at appropriate venue i.e., State Courts instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Paine v. Copper Belle Mining Company of Arizona, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Copper Belle Mining Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence had been handled and interpreted during the trial process. They contended that certain pieces of evidence which could have potentially exonerated Paine were improperly excluded from consideration by the jury, thereby denying him a fair trial. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of mining law as it pertained to this case, arguing instead for an alternative understanding which would have favored Paine’s claim against Copper Belle Mining Company.