In the United States v. Updike et al., 1929, the Supreme Court examined whether certain transactions involving a butter company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The government alleged that Central Manufacturing Company and its subsidiaries had conspired to monopolize trade in violation of antitrust laws by acquiring other companies and controlling prices. The defendants argued that they were not guilty because their actions did not restrain interstate commerce as required under the law for conviction. However, Justice Stone writing for majority held that even if individual transactions were intrastate, when considered together they could still constitute an unlawful restraint on interstate commerce due to their cumulative effect on market competition. Therefore, it was ruled that these acquisitions indeed violated federal antitrust laws.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Updike et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He believed that a conspiracy to monopolize trade, even if it is not successful, still constitutes a violation of this act. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted "direct" versus "indirect" effects on commerce; in his perspective, any action intended to control or manipulate interstate commerce should be considered direct interference regardless of its success or immediate impact. The justice also criticized their narrow interpretation of 'intent,' arguing that an intent to restrain trade can exist even without explicit agreements between conspirators but through understanding and common purpose among them which could be inferred from their actions and circumstances surrounding them.