Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
317 U.S. 173 · 1942
Citation profile
345 federal appellate · 97 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 967 later decisions (125 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979)
345 federal appellate · 97 district · 86 state decisions — followed in 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedJefferson Electric Co. v. Sola Electric Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States · Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger 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 967 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is inapplicable to those areas of judicial decision within which the policy of the law is so dominated by the sweep of federal statutes that legal relations which they affect must be deemed governed by federal law having its source in those statutes, rather than by local law”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“And if it be suggested that Kaiser should not have waited so long to assert its defense, the Court has held that 'rules of estoppel will not be permitted to thwart the purposes of statutes of the United States.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Local rules of estoppel which would fasten upon the public as well as the petitioner the burden of an agreement in violation of the Sherman -Act must yield to the Act’s declaration that such agreements are unlawful, and to the public policy of the Act which in the public interest precludes the enforcement of such unlawful agreements. Cf. Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 , 492, 493, 315 U.S. 788 , 62 S.Ct. 402 , 405, 86 L.Ed. 363 .” Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U.S. 173 , 177, 63 S.Ct. 172 , 174, 87 L.Ed. 165 (1942).”
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.