In the case of Weems Steamboat Company of Baltimore v. People's Steamboat Company, 1908, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract that granted exclusive docking rights to one company violated antitrust laws. The Weems Steamboat Company had entered into an agreement with a wharf owner in Maryland which gave them sole access to his dock for steamboats. However, when another company - People’s Steamboat Company - attempted to use the same dock and was denied access due to this exclusivity agreement, they sued on grounds that it constituted restraint of trade and thus violated federal antitrust law (Sherman Antitrust Act). The court ruled in favor of Weems stating that such contracts did not violate anti-trust laws as long as they were reasonable and didn't monopolize or restrain commerce unduly. This decision clarified how courts should interpret contractual agreements under antitrust legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for Weems Steamboat Company of Baltimore v. People's Steamboat Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a Maryland statute that regulated steamboats' schedules on Chesapeake Bay. He argued that the law was intended to prevent destructive competition between companies and ensure reliable service for passengers, rather than to protect any particular company from competition. Therefore, he believed it was incorrect to interpret this law as granting an exclusive right or monopoly over certain routes or times to one company without explicit language stating so in the statute itself. Furthermore, he contended that if such monopolistic rights were granted by implication alone, it would be contrary to public policy and potentially unconstitutional under state law which generally disfavors monopolies unless explicitly authorized by legislature.