Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 146 · 1959
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 1999 · most notably Weiss v. York Hospital (1984), Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and the House of Seagram, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., Barton Distilling Company v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd. (1969)
42 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiffs have never attempted to obtain from any of the film companies licenses under which they themselves would manufacture accessories and, in fact, have expressly stated that they do not desire such licenses. In the absence of such demand upon the part of plaintiffs, the courts have consistently held that there can be no recovery in an antitrust action. •Js* Hr *5C* “It is abundantly clear to this court that the plaintiffs, by their own choice, are nothing more than jobbers in the field of standard accessories, and thus come within the purview of cases involving exclusive dealerships such as Locker v. American Tobacco Co., 2 Cir., 1914, 218 F. 447 at page 450, where it was stated: ‘We are unable to discover anything illegal in a manufacturer of tobacco disposing of his goods to a jobber to sell to retailers, or, if he deems it advisable, to change his policy, and sell direct to the retailer himself. Why may he not do so? One who desires to become a jobber has no right to complain because the manufacturer chooses another to do this work, unless the manufacturer owes some duty to consign his product, or a part of [sic] thereof, to him.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * They [the distributors] contracted with National Screen because no comparable firm was available to undertake the task. The most that can be gleaned from the factual pattern is that the business climate affected each of the film companies in a substantially similar way and they individually decided to extricate themselves from a losing proposition.””
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.