Kobe, Inc. v. Dempsey Pump Co.’s Empirical Analysis
198 F.2d 416 · 1952
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau (1982), Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc. (1979)
85 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · American Tobacco Co. 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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To make sure that a monopoly is not granted for mere perfection of workmanship, the courts closely scrutinize claims to combinations for improvements in a crowded art. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 10 , 67 S.Ct. 6 , 91 L.Ed. 3 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * we must not permit the courts to be a vehicle for maintaining and carrying out an unlawful monopoly which has for its purpose the elimination and prevention of competition.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The result of Kobe's infringement action, its verbal and written statements to the trade, was disastrous to the defendants. There was almost a complete boycott of their products. To hold that there was no liability for damages caused by this conduct, though lawful in itself, would permit a monopolizer to smother every potential competitor with litigation before it had an opportunity to be otherwise caught in its tentacles and leave the competitor without a remedy.”
2 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.