In the case of Gasoline Products Co., Inc. v. Champlin Refining Co., 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a partial new trial can be granted only when it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice. The dispute arose over an alleged patent infringement by Gasoline Products Company against Champlin Refining Company concerning road surfacing material production methods. A lower court found in favor of Champlin but ordered a new trial solely on damages, not liability issues. On appeal, the Supreme Court held this was inappropriate because determining damages was inseparable from other aspects like liability and contributory negligence; hence ordering separate trials would lead to potential injustice or confusion for juries in future proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Gasoline Products Co., Inc. v. Champlin Refining Co., Justice Stone argued that a new trial should not have been ordered because there was no error in the original proceedings that would justify it. He believed that the lower court had correctly applied the law and properly instructed the jury, so its verdict should stand. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were some minor errors in how damages were calculated, these could be corrected without needing to hold an entirely new trial. Therefore, he disagreed with his colleagues' decision to remand this case back to district court for retrial on all issues rather than just those related to damages.