United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
262 federal appellate · 57 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 552 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975), Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital (1976)
262 federal appellate · 57 district · 31 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 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. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp. · United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. · Greenwood 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 552 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has been held too often to require elaboration ... that price fixing is contrary to the policy of competition underlying the Sherman Act ....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nothing contained in paragraph (2) of this subsection [legalizing agreements prescribing stipulated resale prices, see note 4, supra ] shall make lawful contracts or agreements providing for the establishment or maintenance of minimum or stipulated resale prices on any commodity referred to in paragraph (2) of this subsection, between manufacturers, or between producers, or between wholesalers, or between brokers, or between factors, or between retailers, or between persons, firms, or corporations in competition with each other.” 15 U.S.C. § 45 (a)(5).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal: Provided, That nothing contained in sections 1 to 7 of this title shall render illegal, contracts or agreements prescribing minimum prices for the resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or container of which bears, the trademark, brand, or name of the producer or distributor of such commodity and which is in free and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced or distributed by others, when contracts or agreements of that description are lawful as applied to intrastate transactions, under any statute, law, or public policy now or hereafter in effect in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia in which such resale is to be made, or to which the commodity is to be transported for such resale, and the making of such contracts or agreements shall not be an unfair method of competition under Section 45 of this title: Provided further, That the preceding proviso shall not make lawful any contract or agreement, providing for the establishment or maintenance of minimum resale prices on any commodity herein involved, between manufacturers, or between producers, or between wholesalers, or between brokers, or between factors, or between retailers, or between persons, firms, or corporations in competition with each other. Every person who shall make any contr”
3 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.