In the 1945 case of McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government regarding a dispute over compensation for damages to a barge owned by McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. The barge was damaged while being used by the U.S Army during World War II under an agreement that exempted the government from liability for any damage or loss unless it resulted from negligence or willful misconduct. The company argued that they were entitled to compensation because their vessel had been returned in a damaged state and claimed this constituted negligence on part of those responsible for its care and operation while it was requisitioned by military authorities. However, after reviewing evidence presented at trial court level, including testimony about how barges are typically operated and maintained during wartime conditions, as well as specifics about what kind of damage occurred to this particular barge (which included wear-and-tear type issues), Justice Douglas delivered an opinion stating there wasn't sufficient proof provided showing specific negligent acts leading directly to said damages; therefore ruling against McAllister's claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McAllister Lighterage Line, Inc. v. United States et al., 1945 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal regulation requiring tugboats and other vessels to carry certain equipment was an overreach of government power. The dissenters believed that this requirement imposed an undue burden on small businesses, such as McAllister Lighterage Line, which could not afford to comply with these regulations without suffering significant financial hardship. They also questioned whether the federal government had jurisdiction over local waterways where these boats operated and suggested that such matters should be left up to individual states or municipalities rather than being regulated at a national level.