Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 U.S. 37 - Bedford Cut Stone Co v. Journeyman Stone Cutters' Ass'n of North America

Bedford Cut Stone Co v. Journeyman Stone Cutters' Ass'n of North America’s Empirical Analysis

274 U.S. 37 · 1927

Citation profile

396
cited by 396 later decisions
74
cited 74 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

141 federal appellate · 32 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 396 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)

141 federal appellate · 32 district · 25 state decisions

12601927193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedBedford Cut Stone Co. v. Journeymen Stone Cutters' Ass'n of North America (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Swift Company v. United States · Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering

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

  1. ““Erom a consideration of all the evidence, it is apparent that the enforcement of the general order to strike against petitioners’ product could have had no purpose other than that of coercing or inducing the local employers to refrain from purchasing such product. * * * That the means adopted to bring about the contemplated restraint of commerce operated after physical transportation had ended is immaterial. * * * The product against which the strikes were directed, it is true, had come to rest in the respective localities to which it had been shipped, so that it had ceased to be a subject of interstate commerce, * * * and interferences for a purely local object with its use, with no intention, express or implied, to restrain interstate commerce, it may be assumed, would not have been a violation of the Anti-Trust Act. * * * But these interferences were not thus in pursuit of a local motive; they had for their primary aim restraint of the interstate sale and shipment of the commodity. Interstate commerce was the direct object of attack ‘for the sake of which the several specific acts and courses of conduct [were] done and adopted.’ And the restraint of such commerce was the necessary consequence of the acts and conduct and the immediate end in view.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The acts complained of made up the details of an elaborate program adopted and carried out by defendants and their organizations in and about the city of New York as part of a country-wide program adopted by the International Association, for the purpose of enforcing a boycott of complainant’s product. The acts embraced the following with others : Warning customers that it would be better for them not to purchase, or, having purchased, not to install, presses made by complainant, and threatening them with loss should they do so; threatening customers with sympathetic strikes in other trades; notifying a trucking company, usually employed by customers to haul the presses, not to do so, and threatening it with trouble if it should; inciting employees of the trucking company, and other men employed by customers of complainant, to strike against their respective employers in order to interfere with the hauling and installation of presses, and thus bring pressure to bear upon the customers; notifying repair shops not to do repair work on Duplex presses; coercing union men by threatening them with loss of union cards and with being blacklisted as “scabs” if they assisted in installing the presses; threatening an exposition company with a strike if it permitted complainant’s presses to be exhibited; and resorting to a variety of other modes of preventing the sale of presses of complainant’s manufacture in or about New York City, and delivery of them in interstate commerce, such as i”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the immediate purpose and necessary effect of restraining future sales and shipment's in interstate commerce”
    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.