Philip Klein v. The Lionel Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
237 F.2d 13 · 1956
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc. (1980), Jf Feeser Inc v. Serv-a-Portion Inc (1990)
22 federal appellate · 4 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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 13A (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · United States v. Borden Co. · Z. T. Naifeh, Dba Sooner Sales Co. v. Ronson Art Metal Works, Inc., a Corporation · Shaw's, Inc. v. Wilson-Jones 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, * * * and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The decisions of many cases have crystalized the rule that an individual can have no cause of action under Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act unless he is an actual purchaser from the person charged with the discrimination.” (footnote omitted)”
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.