In the case of American Car & Foundry Co. v. Brassert, 1932, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between American Car & Foundry Company (ACF) and an inventor named Brassert. ACF had entered into a contract to pay royalties to Brassert for his patented invention used in their manufacturing process but later stopped payments claiming that they were no longer using his specific design but rather an improved version not covered by the original patent agreement. The court ruled in favor of ACF stating that if there is any substantial change or improvement made on a patented item which makes it essentially different from the original one then it does not infringe upon the existing patent rights even though some parts may be identical or similar to those found in previous patents. Therefore, ACF was justified in discontinuing royalty payments as they were no longer using Brassert's exact design.

In the dissenting opinion for American Car & Foundry Co. v. Brassert, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroad companies to pay double damages for injuries caused by their negligence was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that such punitive measures were not justified unless there was evidence of willful misconduct or gross negligence, neither of which had been proven in this case. Furthermore, he believed that imposing excessive penalties on railroads could potentially discourage them from operating in states where these laws existed, thereby interfering with interstate commerce and undermining national economic interests.