In the 1915 case of Duel v. Hollins, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Duel, had obtained patents for certain improvements in cotton compresses and subsequently sold these to Hollins under an agreement that included royalties on each machine using his invention. However, after some time, Hollins stopped paying royalties claiming that he was no longer using Duel's patented inventions but instead was utilizing another design not covered by Duel's patents. In response to this claim by Hollins, Duel filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract. The court ruled in favor of the defendant (Hollins), stating that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff (Duel) to prove infringement on their patent rights as part of their burden of proof when seeking damages for unpaid royalties under such agreements. Since there was insufficient evidence provided by Duel demonstrating that his patented designs were still being used without payment or permission from him - which would constitute infringement - he could not successfully claim damages for unpaid royalties.

In the dissenting opinion for Duel v. Hollins, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed an insurance company to avoid paying out on a life insurance policy due to alleged misrepresentations by the insured. He argued that there was insufficient evidence of fraud or intentional deception on part of the insured and thus, it was unjust to penalize him by voiding his policy. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were inaccuracies in the information provided by Mr. Duel during his application process, these did not necessarily constitute fraudulent behavior as they may have been unintentional errors or misunderstandings rather than deliberate attempts at deceit. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of contract law principles and fairness considerations, Hollins should still be entitled to receive benefits from her husband's life insurance policy despite any potential discrepancies in his initial application form.