A. B. Small Co. v. Lamborn & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
267 U.S. 248 · 1925
Citation profile
263 federal appellate · 29 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 407 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995 · most notably Pennsylvania Co v. Chamberlain (1933), Kelly v. Kosuga (1959)
263 federal appellate · 29 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Improvement Company v. Munson · Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. · Continental Wall Paper Company v. Louis Voight & Sons Company · Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company
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 407 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule for testing the direction of a verdict, as often has been held, is that- where the evidence is undisputed, or of sueh conclusive character that if a verdict were returned for one party, whether plaintiff or defendant, it would have to he set aside in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion,- a verdict may and should be directed for the other party.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Independently of the character of commerce involved, it was not shown that the contracts were in themselves invalid under the Anti-Trust Act, but only that they were collateral to a combination prohibited by it. In substance, the defense was that the seller and others had entered into a combination to manipulate interstate trade in refined sugar with a view to increasing the price, that the contracts were made during the life of the combination, and that the seller conformed the terms of sale to standards sanctioned by the combination. There was no allegation that it was not the owner of the sugar; nor any allegation that the buyer was a party to the combination, or other than a stranger to it. The contracts disclosed the full transaction between the seller and buyer and contemplated that the sale should pass the title without any restriction on the right of the buyer to resell as it might choose. As has been pointed out in prior cases, there is nothing in the Anti-Trust Act which invalidates such a collateral contract or relieves the buyer from' his obligation under it: Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 550-552 , 22 S. Ct. 431 , 46 L. Ed. 679, 686, 687 ; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight, 212 U. S. 227, 257-259, 29 S. Ct. 280 , 53 L. Ed. 486, 503, 504 ; D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products Ref. Co., 236 U. S. 165, 177 , 35 S. Ct. 398 , 59 L. Ed. 520, 527 , Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118. It is only where the invalidity is inherent in the contract that the act may ”
2 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.