No 12653’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1985
3 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 Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. · United States v. Hutcheson
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants next assert that plaintiff is without standing to sue because, as a party to the alleged illegal agreement it is in pari delicto. Appellants concede, however, that the in pari delicto defense does not apply where plaintiff’s participation in the wrong alleged was induced by economic necessity, or where plaintiff’s wrongful act is divorced from the illegal conspiracy, agreement or “ * * * when a business organization is the victim of an illegal conspiracy between certain of its competitors and a labor union to restrain trade, the business organization is not required to fight the matter out by economic warfare thus subjecting its employees who are not members of the oft ending union, its customers, and its stockholders, to the losses, inconvenience and damages of a strike, all for the purpose of shielding itself from the in pari delicto stigma. “In view of the factual situation which connonted plaintiff, the defense of in pwi delicto is not available here. •'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * An employer has the right and it is his duty, if he is to survive commercially, first to determine the needs of the public, second to provide a time, a place and facilities for meeting those needs, and third to provide, under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, the services of employees to accomplish the foregoing objectives. The rights of labor attach only to the third, and if any effort is made by labor to infringe rights of the employer in the first or second field, it is not shielded from the sword of the anti-trust laws. Determining the needs of the public and meeting those needs are inherent proprietary rights and obligations of the employer and must be clearly distinguished from his rights and duties as master in the master and servant relationship. Setting marketing hours is one such proprietary function which an employer has the exclusive right to determine as dictated by economic factors present within his trading area.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Facts set forth in the complaint show a ‘wide-spread public demand in the Chicago area that meat be available for retail purchase at Jewel stores during one or more evenings of the week.’ Plaintiff has an untrammeled right to determine its course of action in respect to this matter, “Whether one system of market-jug or another offers the greater good and better prices in any given community is to be determined by the public: the laws of free competition may not be thwarted by a combination of employers and unions who conspire to prevent commercial development.””
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.