United States v. Crescent Amusement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
323 U.S. 173 · 1944
Citation profile
296 federal appellate · 31 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 669 later decisions (103 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968), Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation (1984)
296 federal appellate · 31 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 16 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States · 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 669 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court has quite consistently recognized in this type of Sherman Act case that the government should not be confined to an injunction against further violations. Dissolution of the combination will be ordered where the creation of the combination is itself the violation. (Cases cited.) Those who violate the Act may not reap the benefits of their violations and avoid an undoing of their unlawful project on the plea of hardship or inconvenience. That principle is adequate here to justify divestiture of all interest in some of the affiliates since their acquisition was part of the fruits of the conspiracy.” 323 U.S. at page 189, 65 S.Ct. at page 262, 89 L.Ed. 160 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The crux of the government’s case was the use of the buying power of the combination for the purpose of eliminating competition with the exhibitors and acquiring a monopoly in the areas in question. There was ample evidence that the combination used its buying power for the purpose either of restricting the ability of its competitors to license films or of eliminating competition by acquiring the competitor’s property or otherwise. For example, the defendants would insist that a distributor give them monopoly rights in towns where they had competition or else defendants would not give the distributor any business in the closed towns where they had no competition. * * * ” 323 U.S. 181 , 65 S.Ct. 258 , 89 L.Ed. 160 . ****** “ * * * But the vice of this undertaking was the combination of several exhibitors in a plan of concerted action. They had unity of purpose and unity of action. They pooled their buying power for a common end. It will not do to analogize this to a case where purchasing power is pooled so that the buyers may obtain more favorable terms. The plan here was to crush competition and to build a circuit for the exhibitors. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.) 323 U.S. 183 , 65 S.Ct. 259 , 89 L. Ed. 160 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(Such) findings leave much to be desired in light of the function of the trial court. . . . But they are nonetheless the findings of the District Court. And they must stand or fall depending on whether they are supported by evidence.”
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.