In the case of Sun Printing and Publishing Association v. Moore, 1901, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over copyright infringement. The plaintiff was an author who had sold his story to a newspaper for publication but retained all other rights to it. Later on, another newspaper published this same story without obtaining permission from either the author or first publisher. The defendant argued that since they obtained their copy from an issue of the original paper bought in good faith at retail price, they were not infringing upon any copyrights as per section 4952 of Revised Statutes which allowed reproduction after lawful purchase. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff stating that selling copies did not equate to transferring ownership rights under copyright law; hence even though one could buy a physical copy legally and reproduce it for personal use, republishing it commercially constituted infringement because such actions would diminish potential profits for both authors and publishers by saturating market demand prematurely.

In the dissenting opinion for Sun Printing and Publishing Association v. Moore, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of New York law. He contended that under state law, an employee who is injured while performing their duties has a right to compensation from their employer regardless of whether or not they were negligent in causing the injury. According to Justice Harlan, this principle should apply even if there are other parties involved who may also be liable for damages. In his view, it was unjust to deny workers compensation simply because another party might also bear some responsibility for their injuries. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that allowing employees to sue both employers and third parties would lead to excessive litigation and financial burden on businesses; instead he believed such measures were necessary protections for workers' rights.