In this case, Joel Parker brought a suit against Alonzo L. Kane for the recovery of damages caused by an alleged breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of Kane and dismissed the complaint. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Parker argued that he was entitled to recover on his claim because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support it. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that there was not enough evidence presented at trial to prove that a valid contract existed between Parker and Kane or that any breach had occurred as claimed by Parker. Ultimately, they held that even if all facts were taken as true from both parties' testimony during trial, no reasonable jury could have concluded in favor of either party based on those facts alone without further proof being provided by one side or another.

In the dissenting opinion of Joel Parker v. Alonzo L. Kane, Justice Grier argued that the court should not have granted a new trial to the plaintiff because there was no evidence presented in support of his claim that he had been wrongfully evicted from his property by Kane. He noted that while it is true that a jury may decide on matters of fact, they must still be provided with some evidence to make their decision and this was lacking in this case. Furthermore, Grier suggested that even if there had been sufficient proof for a new trial, it would have only served as an opportunity for both parties to present more evidence and arguments before another jury - something which could easily lead to further delays and expense without any guarantee of success or justice being achieved at all. In conclusion, Grier concluded by stating his belief that granting a new trial under these circumstances was inappropriate given the lack of supporting facts presented during proceedings thus far.