Ring v. Spina’s Empirical Analysis
148 F.2d 647 · 1945
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp. (1968), Donovan v. Bierwirth (1982)
77 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Swift Company v. United States · United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n · Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * But here even without a showing of economic coercion as the final step in forcing him to sign the Basic Agreement, plaintiff is precisely the type of individual whom the Sherman Act seeks to protect from combinations fashioned by others and offered to such individual as the only feasible method by which he may do business. Considerations of public policy demand court intervention in behalf of such a person, even if technically he could be considered in pari delicto. Indeed, this is a general principle applicable beyond the anti-trust field. Thomas V. City of Richmond, 79 U.S. 349 , 12 Wall. 349 , 20 L.Ed. 453 ; City of Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, 503 , 1 S.Ct. 442 , 27 L.Ed. 238 ; Logan County Nat. Bank v. Townsend, 139 U.S. 67 , 11 S.Ct. 496 , 35 L.Ed. 107 ; In re Builders’ Finance Ass’n, D.C.S.D.Cal., 26 F.2d 123 . Any other conclusion would mean that for many, perhaps most, victims of restraint of trade, private remedies under the Sherman Act would be illusory, if not quite non-existent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must sign before any Guild members, such as the authors herein, may license or sell to him their works. The Basic Agreement, among other things, fixes the minimum terms under which the Guild permits any of its members to lease or license a play, including the minimum advance payments and the minimum royalties to be paid by a manager. It limits contracts by both managers and authors to those made under its own terms, and between managers and members, both of whom are”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ring v. Spina“with the Guild. [1] It also provides that any dispute shall be finally adjudicated by arbitration. It appears from the moving papers that plaintiff signed this Minimum Basic Agreement after he had invested $50,000 in the play. He came into the venture first by association with, later by taking over the rights of, one Gaumont, who had entered into a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ring v. Spina
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.