D. B. Cole v. Hughes Tool Company, a Corporation, B. F. Conaghan v. Hughes Tool Company, a Corporation, Hughes Tool Company, a Corporation v. R. W. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 924 · 1954
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1998 · most notably Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. (1968), McCullough Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc. (1965)
18 federal appellate · 9 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader · United States v. Yellow Cab Co. · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The final question involves Allied’s claim for treble damages arising out of Weber’s alleged breach of the antitrust laws. It is Allied’s contention that Weber, by attempting to use the threat of cancellation to force Allied to enter into an illegal exclusive-dealing contract, engaged in unfair competition which was the proximate cause of pecuniary damage to Allied. Under Section 3 of the Clayton Act, upon which this claim is based, it is unlawful to enter into any lease, sale or contract which is conditioned upon the lessee’s or purchaser’s not dealing in the goods of a competitor, where the effect of such lease, sale or contract may be substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly. There can be no violation of the Act unless there is a contract, sale or lease. “Allied faces a dilemma on the point. If there was no contract denying it the right to handle products competitive to Weber, there was no violation of the antitrust laws. If there was such a contract, as we have already pointed out the breach was by Allied and so no damages accrued to it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement * * of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse * * * by reason of his having * * * (3) sought to enforce his patent rights against infringement * * 35 U.S.C. § 271 (d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The mere accumulation of patents, no matter how many, is not in and of • itself illegal.” Of course, there must not be a misuse of the patent monopoly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.