Peto v. Howell’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.2d 353 · 1938
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012
12 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Swift Company v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * the context manifests that the statute was drawn in the light of the existing practical conception of the law of restraint of trade, because it groups as within that class, not only contracts which were in resti’aint of trade in the subjective sense, but all contracts or acts which theoretically were attempts to monopolize, yet which in practice had come to be considered as in restraint of trade in a broad sense. * * *” “And a consideration of the text of the second section serves to establish that it was intended to supplement the first, and to make sure that by no possible guise could the public policy embodied in the first section be frustrated or evaded. * * “Undoubtedly, the words ‘to monopolize’ and ‘monopolize’ as used in the section, reach every act bringing about the prohibited results. * * •” “In other words, having by the first section forbidden all means of monopolizing trade, that is, unduly restraining it by means of every contract, combination, etc., the second section seeks, if possible, to make the prohibitions of the act all the more complete and perfect by embracing all attempts to reach the end prohibited by the first section, that is, restraints of trade, by any attempt to monopolize, or monopolization thereof, even although the acts by which such results are attempted to be brought about or are brought about be not embraced within the general enumeration of the first section. * * *” 221 U. S. at pages 59, 60, 61, 31 S.Ct. at page 515.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Forgett v. Scharf
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.