In the case of Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., et al., 1953, Theatre Enterprises sued several film distributors for violating antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize first-run films in downtown Baltimore and exclude suburban theatres like theirs from showing these films until they had completed their downtown run. The Supreme Court ruled against Theatre Enterprises on the basis that a pattern of behavior alone was not sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy under antitrust law; there must be concrete proof of an agreement or concerted action among defendants to restrict trade. In this instance, it was deemed plausible that each distributor independently decided not to license first-run films to suburban theaters due its own business interests rather than as part of a collective scheme.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling dismissing an antitrust claim was incorrect and failed to consider important evidence. The dissent believed that there were significant indications of collusion among film distributors which resulted in a conspiracy against independent movie theaters like the plaintiff's, violating Sherman Antitrust Act provisions designed to prevent such monopolistic practices. They contended that these signs should have been enough for the case to proceed rather than being dismissed outright by summary judgment as it had been at trial level. In their view, this dismissal prevented crucial facts from being fully explored and potentially revealed through further litigation process.