The Shaw v. Quincy Mining Company case in 1891 revolved around a dispute over mining rights and property boundaries. The plaintiff, Shaw, alleged that the defendant, Quincy Mining Company, had unlawfully extracted copper from his land. He sought compensation for the value of the minerals taken as well as an injunction to prevent further extraction activities by the company on his property. However, upon review of evidence including maps and surveys dating back several decades prior to this lawsuit being filed, it was determined that there were discrepancies regarding where exactly these boundary lines fell between their properties. Therefore it could not be definitively proven whether or not any trespassing occurred. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Quincy Mining Company stating that if there is uncertainty about where a boundary line falls then no legal action can be taken until such time when those boundaries are clearly defined by law or agreement between parties involved in dispute over said lands' ownership/use rights etcetera; thus dismissing Shaw's claims against them entirely due lack thereof conclusive proof showing they indeed trespassed onto his land illegally without permission given beforehand which would have constituted violation under existing laws at time judgement was made final here within court proceedings themselves overall.

In the dissenting opinion for Shaw v. Quincy Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's ruling failed to properly interpret Michigan law regarding taxation of mining properties. The dissent contended that under state law, a mine should be assessed based on its value as a whole property rather than just its surface improvements and tangible assets. This interpretation would include considering factors such as potential mineral wealth and profitability in determining tax liability. The dissent also criticized the majority for not giving due deference to local authorities' understanding of their own laws, arguing that these officials were better positioned to understand and apply state statutes correctly. They believed this misinterpretation led to an unfair advantage for mining companies at the expense of other taxpayers who bore a disproportionate share of public burdens.