Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
337 U.S. 293 · 1949
Citation profile
724 federal appellate · 146 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,411 later decisions (76 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. W. T. Grant Co. (1953), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)
724 federal appellate · 146 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 15 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 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Cited together with International Salt Co. v. United States · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co. · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & 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 1,411 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“competition has been foreclosed in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected,”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
6 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.