In the case of Yosemite Gold Mining and Milling Company v. Emerson (1907), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendant, Emerson. The plaintiff, Yosemite Gold Mining and Milling Company had claimed that they were entitled to certain mining rights on public lands based on a law passed by Congress in 1866 which allowed individuals or corporations to claim mineral-rich land for mining purposes. However, this right was subject to pre-existing valid claims. In this case, it was found that when the company staked their claim in 1893, there already existed a valid homestead entry made by one John R Whitehead under an act from 1862 granting free homesteads on public lands for settlement and cultivation purposes. Therefore, since Whitehead's claim preceded that of Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co., his rights were superior according to federal law at the time.

In the dissenting opinion for Yosemite Gold Mining and Milling Company v. Emerson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Emerson failed to properly consider key aspects of mining law. The dissent emphasized that under existing laws, miners have exclusive rights over their claims as long as they comply with federal regulations and local customs. They believed that Yosemite had fulfilled these requirements by performing annual labor on its claim and therefore should retain its rights despite any alleged procedural errors during initial location proceedings. Furthermore, they contended that if such minor mistakes could result in forfeiture of mining rights, this would create an undue burden on miners who often lack legal expertise or resources to ensure perfect compliance with complex procedures. Thus, while acknowledging some irregularities in how Yosemite established its claim initially, the dissenters felt these were not significant enough to justify stripping away property rights without compensation.