Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 U.S. 199 - International Harvester Company of America v. State of Missouri on the Information of Its Attorney General

International Harvester Company of America v. State of Missouri on the Information of Its Attorney General’s Empirical Analysis

234 U.S. 199 · 1914

Citation profile

163
cited by 163 later decisions
44
cited 44 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 14 district · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 163 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2006 · most notably Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934), Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916)

10 federal appellate · 14 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 20 states

4801914192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Swift Company v. United States · Barbier v. Connolly · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.

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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The purpose of [state antitrust] statutes is to secure competition and preclude combinations which tend to defeat it.... There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which precludes a state from adopting and enforcing such policy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is too late in the day to assert against statutes which forbid combinations of competing companies that a particular combination was induced by good intentions.”
    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.