Lorain Journal Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
483 federal appellate · 120 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,157 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
483 federal appellate · 120 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 17 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. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co · Swift Company v. United States
Cited together with Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · United States v. Griffith · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · United States v. Colgate & 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 1,157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distribution within Lorain of the news and advertisements transmitted to Lorain in interstate commerce for the sole purpose of immediate and profitable reproduction and distribution to the reading public is an inseparable part of the flow of the interstate commerce involved. See Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U.S. 291 , 309, 44 S.Ct. 96, 99, 68 L.Ed. 308; Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 , 516, 42 S.Ct. 397, 66 L.Ed. 735; Illinois Central R. Co. v. De Fuentes [Louisiana R. Comm.], 236 U.S. 157 , 163, 35 S.Ct. 275, 276, 59 L.Ed. 517; Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 , 398, 25 S.Ct. 276, 280, 49 L.Ed. 518. Unless protected by law, the consuming public is at the mercy of restraints and monopolizations of interstate commerce at whatever points they occur. Without the protection of competition at the outlets of the flow of interstate commerce, the protection of its earlier stages is of little worth.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a purposeful means of monopolizing interstate commerce is prohibited by the Sherman Act.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”
5 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.