In the 1915 case of Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Company, stockholder Fleitmann sued on behalf of Consolidated Street Lighting Company, alleging that Welsbach was engaging in unfair competition by selling its products below cost to drive competitors out of business. The Supreme Court ruled against Fleitmann and upheld a lower court's dismissal of the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that there was no federal question involved because antitrust laws did not prohibit price-cutting as a competitive practice unless it created or maintained a monopoly, which had not been proven in this case. Furthermore, the Court held that even if such conduct were illegal under state law (which it wasn't), this would still be insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction over an essentially local matter.

In the dissenting opinion for Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Company, Justice Holmes argued that the plaintiff should have been allowed to proceed with his case. He disagreed with the majority's view that a stockholder could not sue on behalf of a corporation if it was under the control of its alleged wrongdoers. Holmes believed this would unjustly protect those in power from legal consequences for their actions and leave minority shareholders without recourse. Furthermore, he contended that dismissing such cases prematurely would prevent courts from fully examining potentially fraudulent behavior by corporate officers or directors. Thus, according to Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion, allowing these types of suits could serve as an important check on corporate misconduct.