Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.2d 788 · 1953
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 1978 · most notably General Electric Co. v. Masters, Inc. (1954), Schwartz v. NMS Industries, Inc. (1978)
18 federal appellate · 5 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 21 U.S.C. § 331 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 352 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 27 U.S.C. § 205 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act)
Relies on Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp. · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · Alabama State Federation of Labor Local v. McAdory
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The ... legislature has defined with particularity the type of commodity with respect to which fair trade prices may be established and enforced; namely, `a commodity which bears, or the label or container of which bears, the trade mark, brand, or name of the producer of the commodity and which is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others.' It was, we think, within the province of the legislature to assume that economic laws constitute a sufficient restraint against capricious or arbitrary price fixing by the producer. As pointed out long ago by Louis D. (later Mr. Justice) Brandeis, the producer `establishes his price at his peril the peril that if he sets it too high, either the consumer will not buy or, if the article is, nevertheless, popular, the high profits will invite even more competition.' We agree with the learned District Judge that Old Dearborn still controls and, further, that, if it is to be overruled, that can be done only by the Supreme Court."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In comparing the two opinions, it must be borne in mind that Old Dearborn was dealing with questions of constitutionality, whereas the Schwegmann case was dealing only with statutory interpretation. There is no implication in Schwegmann that Congressional approval of enforcement against non-signers would be unconstitutional, the implications of the opinion are to the contrary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Louisiana Supreme Court has sustained the validity of the Louisiana Fair Trade Law, and its decision is conclusive, insofar as the State constitution is concerned. Pepsodent Co. v. Krauss Co., 200 La. 959 , 9 So.2d 303 .””
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.