Sugar Institute, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
297 U.S. 553 · 1936
Citation profile
135 federal appellate · 48 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 379 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940), Miller v. California (1973)
135 federal appellate · 48 district · 19 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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Nash v. United States · United States of America v. American Tobacco Co. · Appalachian Coals, 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 379 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Further, the dissemination of information is normally an aid to commerce. As free competition means a free and open market among both buyers and sellers, competition does not become less free merely because of the distribution of knowledge of the essential factors entering into commercial transactions. The natural effect of the acquisition of the wider and more scientific knowledge of business conditions on the minds of those engaged in commerce, and the consequent stabilizing of production and price, cannot be said to be an unreasonable restraint or in any respect unlawful.” [Italics added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And, while the collection and dissemination of trade statistics are in themselves permissible and may be a useful adjunct of fair commerce, a combination to gather and supply information as a part of a plan to impose unwarrantable restrictions, as, for example, to curtail production and raise prices, has been condemned * * * each case demands a close scrutiny of its own facts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“steps . . . to secure adherence, without deviation, to prices and terms . . . announced”
2 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.