Harris v. Barber was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Mississippi. The plaintiff, Harris, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Barber, and that Barber had failed to deliver the deed to the property. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harris, finding that he had a valid claim to the land and that Barber had failed to deliver the deed. The Court also held that Harris was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The case is significant because it established the principle that a contract is binding even if the deed to the property is not delivered. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it is still an important part of contract law today. The case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This ruling has been used in many cases since then, and it is still an important part of contract law today.

In the Supreme Court case Harris v. Barber, Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. She stated that under Alabama law, an individual can only be charged with a crime if they have committed it within two years of being arrested or indicted for it. In this case, Harris had been arrested more than two years after he allegedly committed the crime of possession of marijuana; thus, his arrest violated state law and should not have occurred. Furthermore, Sotomayor argued that even though there may have been probable cause to believe Harris had committed a crime at some point in time prior to his arrest (which is what the majority opinion relied on), this did not excuse violating state law by arresting him outside of its statute-of-limitations period. Therefore, she concluded that because Alabama's statute-of-limitations period was violated when Harris was arrested more than two years after he allegedly possessed marijuana without any intervening events occurring between then and now such as fleeing from justice or committing other crimes related to drug possession ,the court should reverse its decision and find in favor of Harris instead