In the 1923 case Haavik v. Alaska Packers Association, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, Alaska Packers Association. The plaintiff, Haavik was a fisherman who had entered into an employment contract with the association to work for them during a specific fishing season. However, he fell ill and could not complete his contractual obligations. He sued for full wages arguing that under maritime law he should be paid as if he had completed his service even though illness prevented him from doing so. The court disagreed stating that while it is true that seamen are entitled to their wages until they reach home port regardless of whether they become sick or injured on board ship; this principle does not apply when fishermen sign contracts agreeing to work only for a specified period or voyage and do not actually perform services due to sickness or other reasons.

In the dissenting opinion for Haavik v. Alaska Packers Association, it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss Haavik's claim on grounds of laches (unreasonable delay in pursuing a right or claim) was unjustified. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no unreasonable delay by Haavik in asserting his rights and therefore, he should not have been penalized for this perceived tardiness. They pointed out that although some time had passed since the original incident occurred, this did not necessarily mean that Haavik had forfeited his rights to seek compensation from Alaska Packers Association for their alleged breach of contract and negligence leading to personal injury. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Alaskan law regarding workers' compensation claims and felt it unfairly favored employers over injured employees.