In the case of Weber et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 1954, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over profit-sharing plans for employees. The plaintiffs were former employees of Anheuser-Busch who had participated in its profit-sharing plan but left before they were eligible to receive benefits from it. They argued that their share should have been held in trust for them until they reached retirement age and sued to recover it when this did not happen. The court ruled against them, stating that under Missouri law (where the company was based), an employee's right to participate in such a plan is contingent on remaining employed by the company until retirement or another specified event occurs which triggers payment under terms of the plan itself. Therefore, since these ex-employees voluntarily terminated their employment prior reaching eligibility status as defined by said plan, they forfeited any rights to those funds.

In the dissenting opinion for Weber et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Anheuser-Busch was flawed due to its interpretation of Missouri law regarding stockholder inspection rights. The dissent contended that the majority had misinterpreted this law and failed to consider relevant precedents which would have supported Weber's claim for access to certain corporate records as a shareholder. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on what constituted proper purpose for requesting such documents, arguing that seeking information about company operations should be considered legitimate under state laws protecting shareholders' rights. They also expressed concern over potential misuse of power by corporations if their actions were not adequately scrutinized by shareholders.