Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 U.S. 594 - Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States

Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

2,453
cited by 2,453 later decisions
66
cited 66 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

1,018 federal appellate · 293 district · 130 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,453 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (1962), Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States (1958)

1,018 federal appellate · 293 district · 130 state decisions — followed in 20 states

683019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 15 U.S.C. § 4 (§ 4 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)

Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Near v. State of Minnesota Olson · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Wickard v. Filburn

Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. Griffith · Standard Oil Co. of California 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 2,453 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The common core of the adjudicated unlawful tying arrangements is the forced purchase of a second distinct commodity with the desired purchase of a dominant `tying' product, resulting in economic harm to competition in the `tied' market.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(t)ying arrangements * * * flout the Sherman Act's policy that competition rule the marts of trade.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “product, or if a substantial volume of commerce in the”
    12 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.