Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.2d 1 · 1949
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Institutionalized Juveniles S v. Secretary of Public Welfare C 83-1696 83-1722 (1985), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rath Packing Co. (1986)
74 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company · Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. v. Gus Blass Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]he prevailing party is prima facie entitled to costs and it is incumbent upon the losing party to overcome that presumption ... [because] denial of costs is in the nature of a penalty for some defection ... in the course of the litigation.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here it is clear that the action was brought in good faith, involving issues as to which the law is in doubt, the court may in its discretion require each party to bear its own costs although the decision was adverse to plaintiff. 10”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce * * * to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality * * * and where the effect .of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition * * * or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of ei ther of them * * *. And provided further, That nothing contained in sections 12, 13, 14-21 and 22-27 of this title shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade * * 13 (0 “It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.””
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.