The Great Lakes Transit Corp. v. Interstate Steamship Co., et al., 1936, was a case that revolved around the issue of competition and monopoly in the shipping industry on the Great Lakes. The plaintiff, Great Lakes Transit Corporation, accused defendants (Interstate Steamship Company and others) of conspiring to create a monopoly by acquiring control over various steamship lines operating on these lakes which violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act - an antitrust law prohibiting certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive. However, after careful examination of evidence presented before it, including contracts and other documents related to acquisitions made by defendants as well as their conduct in relation with competitors or potential competitors; Supreme Court ruled against plaintiff's allegations stating there was no sufficient proof showing any conspiracy aimed at restraining trade or creating monopoly power within meaning of Sherman Act.

The dissenting opinion in the Great Lakes Transit Corp. v. Interstate Steamship Co., et al case argued that the majority's decision to allow a shipper to recover damages from a carrier for losses incurred due to delay, even when there was no explicit agreement regarding time of delivery, set an unfair precedent. The dissent contended that this ruling would place an undue burden on carriers who may not have control over certain delays such as those caused by weather or other unforeseen circumstances. It further noted that if shippers wanted guarantees about timing, they should negotiate these terms explicitly in their contracts with carriers rather than relying on courts to imply them after-the-fact based on general principles of common law.