In the 1891 case of Sherman v. Grinnell, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving water rights in California. The plaintiff, John D. Sherman Jr., claimed that he had been deprived of his rightful access to water from a stream running through property owned by defendant George W. Grinnell and others due to their construction of dams and ditches which diverted the flow away from his land for irrigation purposes. The court found in favor of Sherman, ruling that under Californian law he was entitled to reasonable use and enjoyment of the waters as an adjacent landowner downstream regardless if it is used for mining or agricultural purposes; this right could not be interfered with by other parties upstream who sought to divert it for their own uses without proper agreement or compensation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Sherman v. Grinnell argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that there were insufficient grounds to overturn the lower court's ruling, which had found in favor of Grinnell. They contended that it was not within their purview as Supreme Court justices to reevaluate or second-guess factual determinations made by lower courts unless there was clear evidence of error or injustice, which they did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent for future cases if high courts could easily override decisions made at trial level based on their own interpretations rather than established legal principles and precedents.