In the 1958 case of Eagle Lion Studios Inc. v. Loew's Inc., Eagle Lion Studios accused Loew's Incorporated, a film distribution company, of violating antitrust laws by monopolizing first-run theaters in certain areas and preventing other distributors from showing their films there. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Loew's, stating that while it was true that they had exclusive rights to some first-run theaters, this did not constitute an illegal monopoly as there were still numerous other venues where competing distributors could show their films. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that these arrangements were made with any intent to create or maintain a monopoly; rather they appeared to be standard business practices within the industry at the time.

In the dissenting opinion for Eagle Lion Studios Inc. v. Loew's Inc., the justice argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy between film distributors and exhibitors, which was central to the plaintiff's case. The justice believed that while some of the defendants' actions may have been questionable, they did not necessarily constitute an illegal agreement or conspiracy under antitrust laws. Furthermore, he emphasized that business decisions made independently by each company should not be automatically assumed as part of a collective scheme simply because they resulted in similar outcomes or patterns across the industry. He also criticized how lower courts handled this case, particularly their reliance on circumstantial evidence and failure to properly instruct juries about what constitutes sufficient proof of conspiracy in antitrust cases.