In the case of G.S. Nicholas & Company et al. v. United States (1918), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract for the sale and delivery of goods, which had been entered into prior to their arrival in America, could be considered as an importation subject to duty under customs laws even if they were not physically present within U.S borders at the time of contract execution. The court held that such contracts did constitute importations and were therefore liable for duties under customs law regardless of physical presence during contractual agreement. This decision upheld previous rulings by lower courts on this matter.

The dissenting opinion in the case of G.S. Nicholas & Company et al. v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Act was overly broad and could potentially criminalize normal business practices. The dissent contended that while price-fixing agreements were indeed illegal under the act, not all forms of cooperation between businesses should be considered as such. They pointed out that if every agreement affecting prices was deemed a violation, then any form of contract or trade association would also be unlawful - an outcome they believed Congress did not intend when drafting the legislation. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence had been handled during trial; specifically arguing against admitting hearsay evidence from co-conspirators who hadn't testified at trial and weren't subject to cross-examination by defendants' counsel.