Transamerica Corp. v. Board of Governors’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.2d 163 · 1953
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2003 · most notably Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc (1977), United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963)
13 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 21 (§ 11 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of one or more corporations engaged in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A monopoly involves the power to raise prices or to exclude competition when the monopolist desires to do so. Obviously, under Section 7 it was not necessary for the Board to find that Transamerica has actually achieved monopoly power but merely that the stock acquisitions under attack have brought it measurably closer to that end. For it is the purpose of the Clayton Act to nip monopoly in the bud. Since by definition monopoly involves the power to eliminate competition a lessening of competition is clearly relevant in the determination of the existence of a tendency to monopolize. * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition between such corporations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce.””
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.