United States v. Standard Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
316 F.2d 884 · 1963
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc. (1980), United States v. Calabrese (1981)
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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 Glasser v. United States · Kotteakos v. United States · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp. · United States v. Bufalino
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“government was issuing subpoenas to compel witnesses ... to come, not to the courtroom, but to the United States Attorney's office at hours when the court was not in session.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As litigation grows increasingly complex, the jury often may be helped in their deliberations by having a copy of the instructions before them rather than sending word to the court asking that the instructions on a certain point be repeated. The trial judge has wide discretion as to whether he [or she] will submit a copy of his [or her] instructions to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The substantive law of trade conspiracies requires some consciousness of commitment to a common scheme____ Unless the individuals involved understood from something that was said or done that they were, in fact, committed to raise prices, there was no violation of the Sherman Act.”
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.