Las Vegas Merchant Plumbers Ass'n v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
210 F.2d 732 · 1954
Citation profile
110 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably United Mine Workers v. Pennington (1965), Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp. (1979)
110 federal appellate · 15 district · 5 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)
Relies on Glasser v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Allen v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Wickard v. Filburn
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That the acts complained of, occurred within the flow of interstate commerce. This is generally referred to as the 'in commerce' theory. 35”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . True, a price fixing conspiracy which operates on or within the flow of interstate commerce affects that commerce as a matter of law. But a price fixing conspiracy at a purely local or intrastate level does not, as a matter of law, affect the flow of commerce. Whether a purely local or intrastate conspiracy unreasonably restrains interstate commerce is primarily a factual question, i. e., does the local price fixing conspiracy affect substantially the flow of interstate commerce? If the answer is yes, then only are we concerned with the effect of the price-fixing under the per se doctrine. In fact, unless there is a finding that the local and intrastate activities complained of and as alleged . . . substantially affected interstate commerce, there is no jurisdiction in a district court over the alleged Sherman Act violation. . . .” 210 F.2d, at 747 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i)f it is interstate commerce that feels the pinch, it does not matter how local the operation which applies the squeeze.”
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.