In the Standard Oil Company v. Brown case of 1909, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Standard Oil Company. The dispute arose when Mr. Brown, a shareholder in one of Standard's subsidiaries, filed suit against both entities claiming that they were operating as a single entity to manipulate prices and stifle competition - essentially forming an illegal monopoly under Ohio law where the subsidiary was incorporated. However, the court held that despite their close relationship and intermingling operations, each company maintained its own separate corporate identity with distinct rights and responsibilities under state laws where they were respectively incorporated (New Jersey for Standard). Therefore, it dismissed claims against them being treated as one entity for legal purposes including antitrust violations alleged by Mr. Brown.

In the dissenting opinion for Standard Oil Company v. Brown, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Standard Oil Co. was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and business practices. The dissenting justices believed that the company had not violated any laws by selling oil at different prices in different locations, as this is a common practice in many industries due to varying costs associated with transportation and market conditions. They also disagreed with the interpretation of "restraint of trade," arguing that not every action which affects competition constitutes an illegal restraint on trade under antitrust laws. Furthermore, they contended that there was insufficient evidence proving intent or actual harm caused by alleged price discrimination activities.