Federal Trade Commission v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
261 U.S. 463 · 1923
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 243 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States (1953)
123 federal appellate · 18 district · 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSinclair Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United Shoe Machinery Corporation v. United States · Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz · Canfield Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 243 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has no general authority to compel competitors to a common level, to interfere with ordinary business methods or to prescribe arbitrary standards for those engaged in the conflict for advantage called competition. The great purpose of both statutes was to advance the public interest by securing fair opportunity for the play of the contending forces ordinarily engendered by an honest desire for gain. And to this end it is essential that those who adventure their time, skill, and capital should have large freedom of action in the conduct of their own affairs.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no covenant in the present contract which obligates the lessee not to sell the goods of anopher; and its language cannot be so construed.! Neither the findings nor the evidence show circumstances similar to those surrounding the ‘tying’ covenants of the Shoe Machinery Company. Many competitors seek to sell excellent brands of gasoline, and no one of them is essential to the retail business. The lessee is free to buy wherever he chooses. He may freely accept and use as many pumps as he wishes, and may discontinue any or all of them. He may carry on business as. his judg ment dictates and Ms means permit, save only that he cannot use the lessor’s equipment for dispensing another’s brand. By investing a comparatively small sum, he can buy an outfit and use it -without hindrance. He can have respondent’s gasoline, with the pump or without the pump, and many competitors seek to supply his needs. “The cases relied upon are not controlling.””
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.