International Salt Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
332 U.S. 392 · 1947
Citation profile
1,010 federal appellate · 188 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,041 later decisions (144 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)
1,010 federal appellate · 188 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 14 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. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 47 (§ 7 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
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 · National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co.
Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.
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 2,041 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the purpose to restrain trade appears from a clear violation of law, it is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to that end be left open and that only the worn one be closed.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“volume of business * * * [which] cannot be said to be insignificant or insubstantial.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unreasonable, per se, to foreclose competitors from any substantial market.”
8 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.