In the 1906 case of Wetmore v. Karrick, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving mining rights in Utah. The plaintiff, Wetmore, claimed that he had purchased mining claims from an individual who had obtained them through location and possession under federal law. However, Karrick argued that this individual did not have valid title to these claims because they were located within a land grant made by Congress to the Union Pacific Railroad Company before any discovery of minerals was made thereon. The court held that even though the railroad company's patent included mineral lands, it only covered those known at the time of its issuance; therefore it didn't include subsequently discovered mines unless expressly stated otherwise in its terms or conditions. Thus, since no such provision existed here and as per established precedent which favored miners' rights over grantees', Wetmore’s claim was upheld.

In the dissenting opinion for Wetmore v. Karrick, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Wetmore was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in the trial process which had not been adequately addressed by either the trial or appellate courts. They contended that these procedural mistakes could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict and thus, they felt an obligation to ensure justice by overturning this flawed judgment. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain evidence had been interpreted and presented during proceedings - arguing it favored Karrick unfairly. Ultimately, their belief rested on upholding due process of law and ensuring fairness within judicial procedures; principles they felt were compromised in this case.