In the case of St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling in 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving a patent infringement claim by St. Paul Plow Works against Starling for an improvement to plows that was patented by St. Paul Plow Works. The lower court had found in favor of Starling, ruling that there was no infringement because the design changes were not significant enough to warrant protection under patent law and thus did not infringe upon any existing patents held by St.Paul Plow Works. However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that even minor improvements can be protected under patent law if they provide new or improved functionality or efficiency - which was indeed true in this case as per their assessment of evidence presented before them regarding effectiveness and popularity of said improvements among farmers using these plows. The court also emphasized on importance of protecting inventors' rights through robust enforcement of patent laws so as to encourage innovation and progress within society at large.

In the dissenting opinion for St. Paul Plow Works v. Starling, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Starling was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no breach of contract by St. Paul Plow Works because they had fulfilled their obligation under the agreement with Starling by delivering plows as promised and were not responsible for any subsequent issues related to these products after delivery, such as damages or defects which may have occurred during transportation or storage processes beyond their control. They also disagreed with the majority's view on warranty obligations, arguing that warranties should only apply when explicitly stated in a contract rather than being assumed implicitly based on general business practices or expectations between parties involved in commercial transactions.