In the case of Speed v. McCarthy in 1900, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Speed, claimed that he had purchased mining property from its original owner before it was sold to McCarthy by a court-appointed receiver during bankruptcy proceedings. However, due to an error made by the clerk's office when recording his purchase deed, there was no official record of Speed's transaction at the time of McCarthy's purchase. The Supreme Court held that despite this clerical error and lack of formal documentation at the time of sale to McCarthy, Speed still retained rightful ownership over his purchased property because he had acted in good faith and without knowledge about any competing claims or interests for it when buying from its original owner. Therefore, even though McCarthy later bought this same property through what seemed like legitimate means (i.e., via court-ordered sale), his claim was deemed inferior to that of Speed who had first acquired valid title under state law.

The dissenting opinion in the Speed v. McCarthy case argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction by ruling on a matter of state law, specifically regarding land ownership and inheritance rights. The dissenting justices believed that it was not within their purview to interpret or apply Kentucky's laws about property rights and succession, as these were matters reserved for state courts. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of those laws, arguing that they did not necessarily preclude Mrs. Speed from inheriting her husband's estate even though she lived out-of-state at the time of his death. In essence, they felt that this decision encroached upon states' rights and set a dangerous precedent for federal interference in local legal affairs.