Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
246 U.S. 231 · 1918
Citation profile
788 federal appellate · 257 district · 173 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,271 later decisions (156 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940), Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States (1958)
788 federal appellate · 257 district · 173 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 · Swift Company v. United States · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States
Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 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 2,271 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”
184 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Men had to buy and sell without adequate knowledge of actual market conditions,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“created a public market for grain `to arrive.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. No 14119
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.