The Supreme Court case Anderson v. Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast et al., 1926, revolved around a dispute between a ship carpenter and his employer over wages. The plaintiff, Mr. Anderson, alleged that he was not paid in accordance with the Jones Act which stipulates certain wage standards for seamen. He also claimed that the defendants had violated antitrust laws by colluding to suppress wages below legal minimums through their association membership. However, both lower courts ruled against him on these points. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, it upheld these rulings stating that Mr. Anderson did not qualify as a "seaman" under the Jones Act because he worked primarily on land rather than at sea; thus this law could not be applied to his situation regarding wage disputes. Regarding allegations of antitrust violations by employers' associations suppressing wages below legal limits through collusion or conspiracy - while such actions would indeed violate federal law if proven true - no sufficient evidence was presented in this particular case to support those claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Shipowners Association of the Pacific Coast, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of both federal and state law. He contended that under California law, which governed this case, an employer could not be held liable for injuries sustained by an employee due to negligence on part of fellow employees unless it is proven that such negligence resulted from some fault or neglect on part of the employer itself. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 33 of Merchant Marine Act (Jones Act), arguing that it did not intend to make shipowners liable for injuries caused by fellow servants' negligence without proof of their own fault or neglect. Instead, he believed Jones Act merely provided seamen with additional remedies in cases where employers were already found at fault under existing laws. Therefore, according to him, since there was no evidence suggesting any wrongdoing on part of defendants in this case other than hiring negligent employees - something they couldn't have reasonably foreseen - they should not be held responsible for plaintiff’s injury.