Osborn v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
286 F.2d 832 · 1960
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently December 2003 · most notably Lessig v. Tidewater Oil Co. (1964), American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc. (1967)
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 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 Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · International Salt Co. v. United States
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since Sinclair-Sherwood had the right to cancel the lease at its yearly termination date, the problem arises whether the damages flowing from the cancellation are recoverable as damages resulting from the violation of the anti-trust laws. See, however, Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 1951, 340 U.S. 558 , 71 S.Ct. 408 , 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951). Moreover, there is evidence in the record that Osborn had to pay more for Goodyear TBA products than for other brands which he desired. • “Of course, if Osborn sustained no damages that are properly recoverable, he has no cause of action. Because of the questions inherent in this phase of the case, we think it appropriate to remand it to the Dis- ■ trict Court for further hearing, in which the parties will have full opportunity to present additional evidence on the question of damages in the period before as well as after the termination of the lease. The District Court should then determine what items, if any, are recoverable. We wish to emphasize that we are not at this time expressing or intimating any opinion on this aspect of the case.” 286 F.2d at 840, 841 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * the vice of tying arrangements lies in the use of economic power in one market to restrict competition on the merits in another, regardless of the source from which the power is derived and whether the power takes the form of a monopoly or not. ****** “They [tying arrangements] deny competitors free access to the market for the tied product, not because the party imposing the tying requirements has a better product or a lower price but because of his power or leverage in another market. At the same time buyers are forced to forego their free choice between competing products * * *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The standard in Northern Pacific is a quantitative one. Just so the seller is of sufficient size to exert some power and the amount of commerce restrained is not insignificant, the standard is met. If all of the industry-wide economic data had to be shown for which [defendant] argues, it would convert tie-in cases to ‘rule of reason' cases with the requirement of public injury. When facts, as here, reveal a per se restraint of trade, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove, by voluminous economic data, that the public generally has been injured.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.