In the 1928 case of Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Company, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a patent for a snow plow design held by Highland was infringed upon by Russell Car & Snow Plow Company. The lower court had ruled in favor of Highland, finding that there were enough similarities between the two designs to constitute infringement. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and sided with Russell Car & Snow Plow Company. The justices found that while both designs served similar functions and shared some common features (as would be expected given they are both snow plows), these similarities did not amount to an infringement on Highland's patent rights because they were dictated more by functional necessity than creative design choices.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Company argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of contract law. The dissent contended that a contractual agreement should be upheld unless it is proven to be unreasonable or against public policy, which was not demonstrated in this case. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable time" for delivery, arguing that such terms are typically determined by industry standards rather than arbitrary judicial decisions. Furthermore, they believed that any delay on part of Russell Car & Snow Plow Company did not constitute a breach as there were no specific deadlines set within their contract with Highland. Therefore, according to them, the lower court’s ruling holding Russell liable for damages due to delayed delivery should have been upheld.