Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 643 · 1931
Citation profile
274 federal appellate · 39 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 536 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
274 federal appellate · 39 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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
reviewedRaladam Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States of America v. American Tobacco Co. · Davidson v. New Orleans · Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co. · United States v. James a Patten
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 536 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The object of the Trade Commission Act was to stop in their incipiency those methods of competition which fall within the meaning of the word `unfair.' `The great purpose of both statutes was to advance the public interest by securing fair opportunity for the play of the contending forces ordinarily engendered by an honest desire for gain.' Federal Trade Comm. v. Sinclair Co., 261 U.S. 463 , 476, 43 S.Ct. 450, 454, 67 L.Ed. 746. All three statutes [the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act] seek to protect the public from abuses arising in the course of competitive interstate and foreign trade.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he word ‘competition’ imports the existence of present or potential competitors, and the unfair methods must be such as injuriously affect or tend thus to affect the business of these competitors' — that is to say, the trader whose methods are assailed as unfair must have present or potential rivals in trade whose business will be, or is likely to be, lessened or otherwise injured.”
4 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.