United States v. Masonite Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
316 U.S. 265 · 1942
Citation profile
254 federal appellate · 80 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 739 later decisions (98 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971)
254 federal appellate · 80 district · 27 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. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · United States v. Trenton Potteries Co.
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 739 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is elementary that an unlawful conspiracy may be and often is formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. (Citations.) Acceptance by competitors, without previous agreement, of an invitation to participate in a plan, the necessary consequence of which, if carried out, is restraint of interstate commerce, is sufficient to establish an unlawful conspiracy under the Sherman Act.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There are strict limitations on the power of the patentee to attach conditions to the use of the patented article. As Chief Justice Taney said in Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549 , when the patented product ‘passes to the hand of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the monopoly. It passes outside of it, and is no longer under the protection of the act of Congress.’ In applying that rule, this Court has quite consistently refused to allow the form into which the parties chose to cast the transaction to govern. The test has been whether or not there has been such a disposition of the article that it may fairly be said that the patentee has received his reward for the use of the article. In determining whether or not a particular transaction comes within the rule of the Bloomer case, regard must be had for the dominant concern of the patent system. As stated by Mr. Justice Story in Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 19 [ 7 L.Ed. 327 (1829)], the promotion of the progress of science and the. useful arts is the ‘main object’; reward of inventors is secondary and merely a means to that end.” (Citations omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“acted independently of the others, negotiated only with Masonite, desired the agreement regardless of the action that might be taken by any of the others, did not require as a condition of its acceptance that Masonite make such an agreement with any of the others, and had no discussions with any of the others”
3 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.