In the case of Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company, 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mining company and against Strickley who claimed that his land was being polluted by smoke from a smelter owned by Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. The court held that since Utah law did not provide for damages caused by air pollution at that time, there could be no federal common law remedy either because it would infrive on state rights to regulate their own affairs. Furthermore, they found insufficient evidence to prove nuisance or negligence claims as well as any violation of constitutional rights under due process clause or equal protection clause. This decision set an important precedent regarding environmental regulation and property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a mining company to dump waste on another person's property without compensation went against established principles of law and justice. The dissent emphasized that every individual has an absolute right to enjoy their property without interference from others, and this principle should not be compromised even in cases where public interest is involved. It further contended that if a private enterprise like a mining company causes damage or nuisance to another person’s property in its operations, then it must bear the cost as part of doing business rather than imposing it on innocent third parties. Therefore, according to this view, Strickley had every right to seek damages from Highland Boy Gold Mining Company for dumping debris onto his land.