Cement Mfrs' Protective Ass'n v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

115 federal appellate · 22 district · 6 state decisions

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 295 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “prevent the perpetration of fraud upon them,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Northwest Airlines Corp. · 326 F. Supp. 295 - Wall Products Co. v. National Gypsum Co.

2. ““ * * * this record wholly fails to establish, either directly or by inference, any concerted action other than that involved in the gathering and dissemination of pertinent information with respect to the sale and distribution of cement to which we have referred, and it fails to show any effect on price and production except such as would naturally flow from the dissemination of that information in the trade and its natural influence on individual action. “For reasons stated in Maple Flooring Association v. United Stales, supra, such activities are not in. themselves unlawful restraints upon commerce and are not prohibited by the Sherman Act.” (Italics mine.) 268 U.S. 588 , at page 606, 45 S.Ct. 586, 592 , 69 L.Ed. 1104 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · 15 F. Supp. 817 - United States v. Sugar Institute, Inc.

3. “The specific job contract is a form of contract in common use by manufacturers of cement whereby cement is sold for future delivery for use in a specific piece of construction which is described in the contract. As was stated in the opinion of the court below, they are contracts “whereby a manufacturer is to deliver, in the future, cement to be used in a specific piece of work, such as a particular building or road, and the obligation is that the manufacturer shall furnish and the contractor shall take only such cement as is required for or used for the specific purpose.” These contracts have, by universal practice, been treated by cement manufacturers as, in effect, free options customarily made and acted upon on the understanding that the purchaser is to pay nothing until after the delivery of the cement to him; that he is not obligated in any event to take the cement contracted for unless he chooses to; that he is not held to the price named in the contract in the event of a decline in the market price; whereas the manufacturer may be held to the contract price if the market advances and may be held for the delivery of the full amount of cement required for the completion of the particular piece of construction described in the contract. The practical effect and operation of the specific job contract therefore is to enable contractors who are bidding upon construction work to secure a call or option for the cement required for the completion of that particular job at a pri”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Northwest Airlines Corp.