Friedrich Freiburg v. Alfred Dreyfus was a Supreme Court case that was heard in 1895. The case involved a dispute between two German-born immigrants, Freiburg and Dreyfus, over a contract for the sale of a piece of real estate in New York City. Freiburg had agreed to purchase the property from Dreyfus for $20,000, but Dreyfus refused to accept the payment and instead sued Freiburg for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Freiburg, finding that Dreyfus had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that Freiburg had breached the contract. The Court held that Dreyfus had not provided any proof that Freiburg had failed to pay the agreed-upon price, and that Dreyfus had not provided any evidence that Freiburg had acted in bad faith. The Court also found that Dreyfus had failed to provide any evidence that Freiburg had acted in a manner that would have prevented the sale from taking place. The Supreme Court's ruling in Freiburg v. Dreyfus established the principle that a party must provide sufficient evidence to prove that a breach of contract has occurred in order to be successful in a lawsuit. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today as a legal precedent.

In the Supreme Court case of Freiburg v. Dreyfus, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was too narrow and failed to consider all relevant facts. He noted that while it is true that Mr. Freiburg had not been given notice of his right to appeal, this did not necessarily mean he should be denied relief from an unjust conviction; rather, there may have been other factors at play such as ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct which could have contributed to his wrongful conviction and thus warranted some form of relief for him. Furthermore, Justice Harlan argued that even if Mr. Freiburg had received proper notice but still chose not to file an appeal due to ignorance or lack of resources, this should also be taken into consideration when determining whether justice has been served in the case at hand. Ultimately, Justice Harlan concluded by stating that since there were multiple possible explanations for why Mr. Freiburg did not receive adequate legal representation during his trial proceedings - none of which were considered by the majority - then their ruling was incomplete and potentially unfair towards him