Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 726 · 1945
Citation profile
398 federal appellate · 24 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 624 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)
398 federal appellate · 24 district · 20 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCorn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 13A (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 21 (§ 11 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Cochrane v. Deener · Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Pacific States Paper Trade Ass'n · Maple Flooring Mfrs' Ass'n v. United States
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 624 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“require that the discriminations must in fact have harmed competition.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.””
4 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.