Robertson v. Edelhoff was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1892. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Texas. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Edelhoff, and that Edelhoff had failed to deliver the deed to the land. The Supreme Court held that Robertson was entitled to the land, as Edelhoff had failed to deliver the deed and had not provided any evidence to the contrary. The Court also held that Robertson was entitled to damages for the delay in receiving the deed. The Court further held that Edelhoff was liable for the costs of the suit, as he had failed to provide any evidence to support his claim of ownership. The decision in Robertson v. Edelhoff established the principle that a party who fails to provide evidence to support their claim of ownership is liable for the costs of the suit.

In the Supreme Court case of Robertson v. Edelhoff, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had incorrectly interpreted the law and failed to consider certain relevant facts. He noted that under existing precedent, an employer was not liable for injuries sustained by an employee while working on their own time unless they were acting within the scope of their employment or with express authorization from their employer. In this case, however, there was no evidence presented to suggest either condition applied; thus, according to Harlan's interpretation of existing law and precedent, Robertson should not have been held liable for Edelhoff's injury. Furthermore, he argued that even if it could be established that Robertson had some degree of control over Edelhoff at the time of his injury—which would make him potentially liable—the court still needed to consider whether any negligence on behalf of Robertson contributed directly or indirectly to cause harm before holding him responsible for damages incurred by Edelhoff as a result thereof. Ultimately then Justice Harlan concluded that since there was insufficient evidence presented in this particular case upon which liability could be based against Robertson under these conditions (i.e., lack of proof regarding scope/authorization), summary judgment should have been granted in favor thereof rather than against him as decided by the majority opinion