The Susser et al. v. Carvel Corp. et al., 1964 case involved a dispute between the Carvel Corporation, an ice cream company, and its franchisees (the Sussers). The Sussers alleged that they were victims of fraudulent misrepresentation by the corporation regarding their potential earnings from operating a Carvel franchise store. They also claimed that the corporation had violated antitrust laws by forcing them to purchase supplies at inflated prices exclusively from approved vendors, thereby restricting competition. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carvel Corporation on both counts. It found no evidence of fraud or deceit in terms of projected earnings as these were based on average sales figures across all franchises - information which was disclosed to prospective franchisees before signing any agreement. On allegations related to anti-competitive practices, it held that such exclusive dealing arrangements are not per se illegal under antitrust laws unless there is substantial foreclosure effect on competition which wasn't proven here.

The dissenting opinion in the Susser et al. v. Carvel Corp et al., 1964 case argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint was premature and inappropriate, as it did not allow for a full exploration of potential antitrust violations by Carvel Corporation. The dissent pointed out that while some allegations were indeed vague, others clearly indicated possible breaches of antitrust laws such as price-fixing and market allocation schemes which could have been further investigated during trial proceedings. It also criticized the majority's reliance on an overly narrow interpretation of what constitutes "interstate commerce," arguing this approach failed to acknowledge modern economic realities where local activities can significantly impact interstate trade. Therefore, according to this view, dismissing these serious claims at such an early stage without allowing them their day in court undermined both justice and public interest.