The Salina Stock Company v. Salina Creek Irrigation Company case in 1895 revolved around water rights and the use of a creek for irrigation purposes. The plaintiff, Salina Stock Company, claimed that they had prior right to the waters of Salina Creek over the defendant, Salina Creek Irrigation Company. They argued that their predecessors had been using these waters since 1872 for milling purposes before being diverted by the defendants in 1889 for irrigation without any legal authority or compensation offered to them. However, it was found that there were no statutory provisions at that time which could have granted such exclusive rights over public streams to individuals or corporations like plaintiffs'. Therefore, Supreme Court ruled against them stating anyone can make beneficial use of water from public streams as long as it does not interfere with its natural flow and damage others' property.

In the dissenting opinion for Salina Stock Company v. Salina Creek Irrigation Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply established principles of water rights law. The dissent emphasized that under existing precedent, a party who first appropriates water from a natural stream for beneficial use has superior right to those waters over subsequent users. This principle should have been applied in favor of the plaintiff, who had constructed its dam and canal system prior to defendant’s diversion project. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Utah territorial laws regarding irrigation companies' rights as overly broad and inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues. They also expressed concern about potential negative implications this ruling could have on future disputes involving water rights in arid western states where such resources are scarce and highly contested.