United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
321 U.S. 707 · 1944
Citation profile
273 federal appellate · 62 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 702 later decisions (112 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966), See v. City of Seattle (1967)
273 federal appellate · 62 district · 38 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 Boyd v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · United States v. Colgate & 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 702 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The Sherman Act forbids combinations of traders to suppress competition. True, there results the same economic effect as is accomplished by a prohibited combination to suppress price competition if each customer, although induced to do so solely by a manufacturer’s announced policy, independently decides to observe specified resale prices. So long as Colgate is not overruled, this result is tolerated but only when it is the consequence of a mere refusal to sell in the exercise of the manufacturer’s right ‘freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal.’ * * * ” 362 U.S. at p. 44 , 80 S.Ct. at p. 511 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a business, such as Soft-Lite, which deals in a specialty of a luxury or near-luxury character,” (tinted optical lenses) “the right to select its customers may well be the most essential factor in the maintenance of the highest standards of service. We are, as the District Court apparently was, loath to deny to Soft-Lite this privilege of selection. United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 307 , 39 S.Ct. 465, 468 , 63 L.Ed. 992 ; Federal Trade Commission v. Raymond Bros. Clark Co., 263 U.S. 565, 573 , 44 S.Ct. 162, 164 , 68 L.Ed. 448 . * * * The path is narrow between the permissible selection of customers under the decision in Colgate & Co. and unlawful arrangements as to prices under this decree, but we think Soft-Lite is entitled to traverse it, after a reasonable interim, * * *»”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A distributor of a trade-marked article may not lawfully limit by agreement, express or implied, the price at which or the persons to whom its purchaser may resell, except as the seller moves along the route which is marked by the Miller-Tydings Act.” United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707 , 721, 64 S.Ct. 805 , 812, 88 L.Ed. 1024 (emphasis added).”
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.