In the case of Ticor Title Insurance Company, et al. v. Walter Thomas Brown and Jeffrey L. Dziewit (1993), the U.S Supreme Court addressed an antitrust dispute involving title insurance companies in several states that had allegedly conspired to fix prices for their services. The defendants argued they were immune from federal antitrust laws due to state regulation of their rates under the "state action" doctrine, which exempts certain state-regulated activities from these laws. However, lower courts found that this immunity did not apply because active supervision by a state was required for such exemption and it was lacking in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision but clarified that mere potential for state supervision is insufficient; actual exercise of control over challenged conduct must be demonstrated to invoke 'state action' immunity from federal antitrust law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Walter Thomas Brown and Jeffrey L. Dziewit argued that the majority's decision to apply per se analysis was inappropriate because it failed to consider whether or not there was actual anti-competitive behavior present. The dissenters believed that a rule-of-reason analysis should have been applied instead, which would require proof of market power and anticompetitive effects before condemning an agreement as illegal under antitrust laws. They also disagreed with the majority's view on state action immunity, arguing that states should be allowed more leeway in regulating their own industries without federal interference unless it is clear they are promoting anti-competitive practices.