Feddersen Motors, Inc. v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.2d 519 · 1950
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently March 1992 · most notably Nagler v. Admiral Corp. (1957), Chicago Title Insurance v. Great Western Financial Corp. (1968)
51 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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
Relies on Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States · Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal · Shotkin v. General Electric Co. · Glenn Coal Co. v. Dickinson Fuel Co.
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“allege facts from which it can be determined as a matter of law that by reason of intent, tendency, or the inherent nature of the contemplated acts, the conspiracy was reasonably calculated to prejudice the public interest by unduly restricting the free flow of interstate commerce,”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * in other words, the complaint failed to allege facts from which it could be determined as a matter of law that a combination or conspiracy was entered into which brought about an increase in prices to the consuming public, a diminution in the volume of merchandise in the competitive markets, a deterioration in the quality of the merchandise available in the channels of commerce, or any other like evil consequence in the free flow of interstate commerce. Instead, the pleading bore clear internal indications of a personal grievance on the part of plaintiff based solely and exclusively upon the declination of the defendant Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company further to transact business with him as an outlet for its manufactured merchandise, with no evil consequence to the consuming public. * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to * * * make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpat-ented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States * * * on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the * * * purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the * * * seller, where the effect of such * * * sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.””
3 later decisions 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.