Delaware Valley Marine Supply Co. v. American Tobacco Co.’s Empirical Analysis
297 F.2d 199 · 1961
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently November 1992 · most notably Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1977), Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and the House of Seagram, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., Barton Distilling Company v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd. (1969)
32 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Interstate Circuit, Inc. 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'plus’ factors such as [1] those emphasized in the simple refusal to deal cases ...; [2] parallelism of a much more elaborate and complex nature; [3] a web of circumstantial evidence pointing very convincingly to the ultimate fact of agreement.” Id. at 205-06 n. 19. 3 . There was ample evidence from which the jury could reach this conclusion. For example, defendant Taggares testified: "Q. Mr. Taggares, in 1976 if the Maine potatoes futures prices went up, would the farmer want to get more money for his potatoes based on that? A. Yes. ****** Q. Now, Mr. Taggares, when you were trading in the futures contracts from March to May 1976, the real dollars involved to you were the effect on your cash market operation, not what you had at risk in the futures market; isn’t that correct? Yes or no.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“doctrine in this case where a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary are alleged to have conspired. I do, however, take issue with its appraisal of Cromar's evidence of the existence of such a conspiracy. The fact that one company is a subsidiary of another is not in itself evidence of concerted action sufficient to support a jury finding of conspiracy. Although proof of conspiracy can be developed by circumstantial evidence, plaintiffs”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“we are aware of the difficulties of proof of modern antitrust conspiracy and that the difficulties increase as the number of conspirators lessens”
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.