Ethyl Gasoline Corporation v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
309 U.S. 436 · 1940
Citation profile
211 federal appellate · 60 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 651 later decisions (123 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940), Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971)
211 federal appellate · 60 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Colgate & Co. · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company
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 651 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The patent monopoly of one invention may no more be enlarged for the exploitation of a monopoly of another than for the exploitation of an unpatented article, or for the exploitation or promotion of a business not embraced within the patent.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Agreements for price maintenance of articles moving in interstate commerce are, without more, unreasonable restraints within the meaning of the Sherman Act because they eliminate competition. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 , (47 S.Ct. 377, 71 L.Ed. 700), and agreements which create potential power for such price maintenance exhibited by its actual exertion for that purpose are in themselves unlawful restraints within the meaning of the Sherman Act. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The patent law confers on the patentee a limited monopoly, the right or power to exclude all others from manufacturing, using, or selling his invention. The extent of that right is limited by the definition of his invention, as its boundaries are marked by the specifications and claims of the patent. He may grant licenses to make, use or vend, restricted in point of space or time, or with any other restriction upon the exercise of the granted privilege, save only that by attaching a condition to his license he may not enlarge his monopoly and acquire some other which the statute and the patent did not give.”
1 later decision 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.