The U.S. Supreme Court case Perrine v. Slack in 1896 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Perrine, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant, Slack. He sought to recover possession of the mine and damages for its detention from Slack who was operating a mine on it at the time of suit commencement. However, there were complications regarding whether or not Perrine actually owned this piece of land due to previous transactions involving third parties before he acquired it. The court found that these prior transactions did not invalidate Perrine's claim as they occurred when California law allowed such sales even if they weren't recorded officially. Despite this finding favoring Perrine’s claim to ownership, the court ruled against him because he failed to provide sufficient evidence proving his right to immediate possession at trial level which is necessary under ejectment laws applicable then. Therefore, while acknowledging potential validity in his ownership claims based on past unrecorded sales practices permitted under state law during those times; without proof showing entitlement for immediate possession when suing initially - an essential requirement within existing ejection statutes – his lawsuit could not succeed.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Perrine v. Slack argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of law regarding property rights. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s view on how to apply a specific California statute, arguing it should not be used to deny Perrine his rightful claim over certain mining properties. They contended that this interpretation violated established principles of equity and fairness, as well as disregarded precedent set by earlier cases dealing with similar issues. Furthermore, they believed that there were factual errors made during trial which influenced the outcome unfairly against Perrine; these included misinterpretations or disregard for evidence presented by him supporting his claims over said properties. Therefore, they felt justice had not been served correctly due to these legal and procedural discrepancies.