Ex Parte Rice’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably 1998-2 City of Tuscaloosa (1998), International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Hatas (1971)
15 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)
Relies on Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Grosjean v. American Press Co. · Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Federal Trade Commission v. Sinclair Refining 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We do not seem to have in Alabama a statute which defines an unlawful monopoly. Section 108, Title 57, Code, makes it a crime, punishable by fine, for any person, including a corporation, to restrain trade or create a monopoly. Section 103 of the Constitution requires legislation to prohibit monopolies and combinations. Section 78, Title 57, Code, makes lawful certain contracts fixing a minimum resale price. We have applied the common law, which is substantially as set out in the Sherman and Clayton Acts. See Sherrill v. Alabama Appliance Co., 240 Ala. 46 (7), 197 So. 1 . " The federal statutes, Sherman and Clayton Acts, prescribe the terms of unlawful monopolies and restraints of trade as they should also be administered in Alabama. The question, therefore, is properly affected by those acts, and it must be controlled by them when the business involved in the suit affects interstate commerce. It is upon that basis that the foregoing conclusions prevail in this case."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“purpose was to engage in a monopoly in violation of the state and federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`Person' includes a corporation under the equal protection and due process clause of the Federal Constitution”
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.