Miller Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
252 F.2d 441 · 1958
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1990 · most notably Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. (1968), Windham v. American Brands, Inc. (1977)
26 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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) · 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)
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the General Motors case, to the contrary, it was shown that the defendant, reaching out to monopolize the business of financing the resale of automobiles of its manufacture, formed a conspiracy unreasonably to interfere with commerce. The court declared that the mandatory scheme to impose the financing of automobile sales through a concern which it wholly owned, and whose profits it enjoyed, was unreasonable and bore no relation to the good will of General Motors or its line of cars.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The hybrid nature of a private antitrust suit dictates that, to succeed, the plaintiff must prove not only that the defendant has infringed one or more of the antitrust laws to the public injury, but also that such infringement has resulted in private injury to the plaintiff in its business or property. 15 U.S.C.A., Sec. 15 . In the absence of a showing of either the public or private harm, the plaintiff cannot prevail.” 252 F.2d 441, 443 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even if we accept plaintiff's argument that LMDA's are a creation of the Ford Motor Company, organized solely to raise advertising funds for its products, the action would nevertheless fail. It is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove a co-operative effort between Ford and LMDA, but it must be shown that the combination has the objectionable features which the act is designed to prevent.”
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.