Nashville Milk Company v. Carnation Company Safeway Stores’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 46 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Cort v. Ash (1975), Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell (1985)
111 federal appellate · 46 district · 5 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
reviewedNashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 11 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 13A (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 21A
Relies on United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co. · Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. · Wilder Manufacturing Company v. Corn Products Refining Company · Moore v. Mead's Fine Bread 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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t seems plain that the rule ex-pressio unius exclusio alterius is applicable, and that the definition contained in § 1 of the Clayton Act is exclusive. Therefore it is of no moment here that the Robinson-Pat-man Act may be colloquially described as an ‘antitrust’ statute. And since no one claims that § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act can be regarded as an amendment to the Sherman Act or the Wilson Tariff Act, the precise issue before us is whether Congress made that section of the Robinson-Patman Act a part of the Clayton Act, thus making it one of the ‘antitrust laws’ whose violation can lead to the private causes of action authorized by §§ 4 and 16. For the reasons stated below we hold that this is not the case.””
2 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 sell, or Contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(Section) 3 (of the Robinson-Patman Act) contains only penal sanctions for violation of its provisions; in the absence of a clear expression of congressional intent to the contrary, these sanctions should under familiar principles be considered exclusive, rather than supplemented by civil sanctions of a distinct statute.”
1 later decision 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.