In the case of Silver King Coalition Mines Company v. Conkling Mining Company (1920), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve a dispute over mining rights in Utah. The Silver King Coalition Mines Company claimed that it had acquired title to certain mining properties through adverse possession, which is a doctrine that allows someone to gain ownership of property by using it openly and continuously for a long period of time without being challenged by the legal owner. However, the Conkling Mining Company argued that under federal law, adverse possession could not be used to acquire title to mineral lands owned by the United States government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Conkling Mining Company, holding that adverse possession did not apply because all unpatented mining claims on public land were part of the public domain until patent issued from federal government; therefore they remained immune from state laws regarding private property disputes such as those involving adverse possession or laches (a delay in asserting one's rights). This ruling clarified an important aspect about how property rights are determined on federally-owned lands.

In the dissenting opinion for Silver King Coalition Mines Company v. Conkling Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly apply established principles of equity and property law. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff should not be allowed to claim ownership over a vein of ore simply because they discovered it first; rather, they must also demonstrate actual possession or use of the vein. They contended that allowing such claims would lead to speculative mining practices and discourage genuine development efforts in mining industry. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of apex law - according to them, this law does not grant exclusive rights over entire veins but only those parts which lie within vertical planes drawn downward from surface boundaries. Thus, if a part of vein extends into another person's land below these planes (extralateral), then it belongs to them regardless who found or worked on its upper portions (apex). Lastly, they criticized court’s reliance on English precedents which were based on different legal systems and societal conditions than American West where this case arose.