Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.2d 402 - Gardella v. Chandler

Gardella v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.2d 402 · 1949

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2006 · most notably Flood v. Kuhn (1972), Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. (1953)

16 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

1301949195019601970198019902000decided

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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 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) · 18 U.S.C. § 1581 · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)

Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Caminetti v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]hatever other conduct the [antitrust] Acts may forbid, they certainly forbid all restraints of trade which were unlawful at commonlaw, and one of the oldest and best established of these is a contract which unreasonably forbids anyone to practice his calling.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As one court, perhaps a bit exaggeratedly, has put it, “While the services of these baseball players are ostensibly secured by voluntary contracts a study of the system as * * * practiced under the plan of the National Agreement, reveals the involuntary character of the servitude which is imposed upon players by the strength of the combination controlling the labor of practically all of the players in the country. * * * ” [I]f the players be regarded as quasi-peons, it is of no moment that they are well paid; only the totalitarian-minded will believe that high pay excuses' virtual slavery.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “he must show that the defendant’s conduct, by which he was injured, was itself subject to the law that he invokes .. , not ... that he was injured by the broadcasting and television; but that ... those activities together with any other interstate activities marked the business as a whole. Certainly that was implied in Federal Baseball ... itself ... [where] nobody questioned that many interstate activities were in fact involved in professional baseball; the court merely thought them not important enough to fix the business-at-large with an interstate character.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.