In the Kauffman v. Wooters case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kauffman, reversing a decision made by the Circuit Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The dispute arose from an agreement between two parties regarding a patent right to manufacture and sell certain articles within specified territories. When Wooters violated this agreement by selling outside his designated territory, Kauffman sued him for damages. However, the lower court dismissed his suit on grounds that he had not provided sufficient evidence to prove loss or damage caused by Wooter's actions. The Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling and stated that it was unnecessary for Kaufmann to provide such proof as long as there was clear violation of contract terms which could potentially cause harm or loss. Therefore, even without specific evidence showing actual damage suffered due to breach of contract (infringement), one can still claim compensation based on potential losses incurred due to said infringement.

The dissenting opinion in the Kauffman v. Wootters case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the rights of individual states. The dissenting justices believed that each state has its own unique laws and regulations, which should be respected by federal courts. They contended that Pennsylvania law clearly stated a married woman could not make contracts without her husband's consent, thus Mrs. Kauffman had no legal right to enter into an agreement with Mr. Wooters independently from her spouse under local law at the time of this dispute occurred (1880s). Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s ruling which held such contract valid and enforceable based on general principles of equity rather than specific state statutes or precedents.