United States v. International Harvester Co.’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 693 · 1927
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 45 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 250 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1999 · most notably United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)
71 federal appellate · 45 district · 6 state decisions
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 Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen U S · United States v. United States Steel Corp. · Cement Mfrs' Protective Ass'n v. United States · Imperial Mach. Co. v. N. R. Streeter & 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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he fact that competitors may see proper, in the exercise of their own judgment, to follow the prices of another manufacturer, does not establish any suppression of competition or show any sinister domination.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The law, however, does not make the mere size of a corporation, however impressive, or the existence of unexerted power on its part, an offense, when unaccompanied by unlawful conduct in the exercise of its power.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This is entirely inconsistent with the purpose of the consent decree, both as appears from its terms and as it was apparently construed by the District Court itself.”
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.