Automatic Canteen Co. of America v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
291 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 461 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1978), United States v. National Dairy Products Corp. (1963)
291 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAutomatic Canteen Co. of America v. Federal Trade Commission (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Tot v. United States · Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. · United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R. · Federal Trade Commission v. Ruberoid 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 461 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(f) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““But trade experience in a particular situation can afford a sufficient degree of knowledge to provide a basis for prosecution. By way of example a buyer who knows that he buys in the same quantities as his competitor and is served by the seller in the same manner or with the same amount of exertion as the other buyer can fairly be charged with notice that a substantial price differential cannot be justified. The Commission need only to show, to establish its prima facie case, that the buyer knew that the methods by which he was served and quantities in which he purchased were the same as in the case of his competitor. If the methods or quantities differ, the Commission must only show that such differences could not give rise to sufficient savings in the cost of manufacture, sale or delivery to justify the price differential, and that the buyer, knowing these were the only differences, should have known that they could not give rise to sufficient cost savings.” (Italics supplied.)”
7 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.