In the 1930 case of Story Parchment Company v. Paterson Parchment Paper Company, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving antitrust laws and damages. The Story Parchment Co., along with other paper companies, accused Paterson Parchment Paper Co. of selling their products below cost in an attempt to monopolize the market, which they claimed violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Initially, lower courts awarded damages to Story based on lost profits due to reduced prices caused by Patterson's actions; however, this was appealed as it was argued that these losses were too speculative and uncertain for accurate calculation. The Supreme Court held that while exact damage calculations may be difficult in such cases where competition is suppressed or destroyed through illegal practices under antitrust law violations, it does not prevent victims from recovering estimated damages once unlawful conduct has been proven. Therefore, even if there might be some degree of uncertainty regarding precise amounts lost due to unfair competition or price manipulation tactics used by defendants like Patterson here - plaintiffs should still have opportunity for compensation when harm can reasonably be demonstrated.

In the dissenting opinion for Story Parchment Company v. Paterson Parchment Paper Company, Justice Stone argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of damages by Paterson Parchment Paper Co. He believed that it was not enough to simply show a decrease in profits during the period of alleged price manipulation; rather, specific proof linking this loss directly to Story's actions should have been provided. Furthermore, he expressed concern over setting a precedent where speculative and uncertain estimates could be used as basis for damage awards in antitrust cases. This lack of concrete evidence made it impossible, in his view, to determine whether any injury had occurred or calculate its extent accurately.