In the 1895 case Sweet v. Rechel, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Nevada. The plaintiff, Sweet, claimed that he had acquired title to the property through adverse possession by occupying and improving it for five years under claim of right and color of title. However, defendant Rechel argued that his own patent from the government gave him superior title to this land. The court held in favor of Rechel because federal law governed public lands such as these; state laws regarding adverse possession did not apply until after full title was vested in an individual or corporation by patent from the government. Therefore, since Sweet's occupation began before issuance of any such patent while it was still public land owned by U.S., his claim failed.

In the dissenting opinion for Sweet v. Rechel, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Nevada law prohibiting mining on private property without consent of the owner was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted previous decisions by the Court and undermined established principles of federal supremacy over public lands. They contended that under federal law, all citizens have equal rights to mine valuable minerals found on public lands regardless of surface ownership or state laws to contrary effect. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation which allowed states like Nevada to limit these federally granted rights through local legislation.