In the 1963 case Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., the Supreme Court addressed a dispute between an independent movie theater and major film distributors over alleged antitrust violations. The plaintiff, Viking Theatre Corporation, claimed that Paramount Film Distributing Corporation and other large film companies had conspired to monopolize first-run films in Detroit by only licensing them to downtown theaters, thereby violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, both lower courts dismissed this claim due to lack of evidence supporting conspiracy or monopoly power abuse allegations. The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions on appeal without issuing a full opinion - known as a "per curiam" decision - indicating agreement with the lower courts' reasoning but not providing further legal analysis or interpretation itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Viking Theatre Corp. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., it was argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the case on procedural grounds failed to address substantive issues of antitrust law at stake in this case. The dissent emphasized that, by focusing solely on whether or not there was a direct injury, the court overlooked important questions about how film distribution practices might be stifling competition and harming consumers. It was suggested that these broader implications should have been considered when deciding whether or not standing existed in this case, as they could potentially demonstrate an indirect but substantial harm caused by alleged monopolistic practices within the movie industry.