Melrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Polizzi (1974), Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed (1962)
63 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 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
reviewedMelrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Forty-One Thirty-Six Wilcox Bldg. Corp. · Schreiber v. Sharpless · Melrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States · Defense Supplies Corporation v. Lawrence Warehouse
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question whether a corporation ‘exists’ for any purpose is thus determined by reference to state law. * * * * *• * “We have found no Maryland decisions interpreting these sections; but we are satisfied that the term ‘proceeding,’ no matter how the state court may construe it, implies enough vitality to make the corporation an ‘existing’ enterprise for the purposes of § 8 of the Sherman Act. ***«■** “We conclude that irrespective of how the Delaware statute may be construed by the Delaware courts, it sufficiently continued the existence of this corporation for the purpose of § 8 of the Sherman Act.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“After dissolution [the dissolved corporation] simply became divisions of a new corporation under the same ultimate ownership. In this situation, there is no more reason to allowing them to escape criminal penalties than damages in civil suits. As the Court of Appeals noted, a corporation cannot be sent to jail. The discharge of its liability whether criminal or civil can be effected only by the payment of money.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We start from the premise that in the federal domain prosecutions abate both on the death of an individual defendant (citations omitted) and on the dissolution of a corporate defendant (citations omitted) unless the action is saved by 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.