Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

103 federal appellate · 40 district · 378 state decisions

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 626 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellants here acquired the commodity in question with full knowledge of the then existing restriction in respect of price which the producer and wholesale dealer had imposed, and, of course, with presumptive if not actual knowledge of the law which authorized the restriction. Appellants were not obliged to buy; and their voluntary acquisition of the property with such knowledge carried with it, upon every principle of fair dealing, assent to the protective restriction, with consequent liability under section 2 of the law by which such acquisition was conditioned.”

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Houbigant Sales Corp. v. Woods Cut Rate Store · Bristol-Myers Co. v. L. Bamberger Co.

2. ““(a) That the buyer will not resell such commodity, except at the price stipulated by the vendor. “(b) That the buyer of such commodity require upon bis resale of such commodity that the purchaser from him agree that such purchaser will not in turn resell except at the price stipulated by the vendor of the buyer. “§ 8. Wilfully and knowingly advertising, offering for sale, or selling any commodity at less than the price stipulated in any contract entered into pursuant to the provisions of section one * * * whether the person * * * is, or is not, a party to such contract, is unfair competition * *”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bristol-Myers Co. v. L. Bamberger Co. · Trilling v. Sugerman

3. ““§ 1. Sale of goods bearing, or vending equipment of which bears trade-mark, etc., permissible provisions “No contract relating to the sale or resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or content of which bears, or the vending equipment from which said commodity is sold to the consumer bears the trademark, brand or the name of the producer or owner of such commodity, and which is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others, shall be deemed in violation of any law of the State of Pennsylvania by reason of any of the following provisions which may be contained in such contract: “(a) That the buyer will not resell such commodity, except at the price stipulated by the vendor. * * * “§ 2. Unfair competition, defined “Wilfully and knowingly advertising, offering for sale, or selling any commodity at less than the price stipulated in any contract entered into pursuant to the provisions of section one of this act, whether the person so advertising, offering for sale, or selling is, or is not, a party to such contract, is unfair competition and is actionable at the suit of such vendor, buyer or purchaser of such commodity.” Act of June 5, 1935, P.L. 266, §§ 1 & 2, as amended June 12, 1941, P.L. 128, No. 66, § 1, 73 Purdon’s Pa.Stat.Ann. §§ 7 & 8.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jordan v. De George · Dr. G. H. Tichenor Antiseptic Co. v. Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets