United States v. Scophony Corp. of America’s Empirical Analysis
333 U.S. 795 · 1948
Citation profile
240 federal appellate · 176 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 905 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Arrowsmith v. United Press International (1963), Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc. (1953)
240 federal appellate · 176 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Cannon Mfg Co v. Cudahy Packing Co · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
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 905 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found.”
66 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Section 12 of the Clayton Act has two functions, first, to fix the venue for antitrust suits against corporations; second, to determine where process in such suits may be served. Venue may he had `not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business.' And all process may be served `in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found.' (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . a corporation is none the less engaged in transacting business in a district, within the meaning of •this section — which deals with suits respecting unlawful restraints upon interstate trade — because of the fact that such business may be entirely interstate in character and be transacted by agents who do not reside within the district.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.