Safeway Stores Incorporated v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association Inc J’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Michigan v. Tyler (1978), Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter (1966)
27 federal appellate · 42 state decisions — followed in 12 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 28 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Tigner v. Texas · Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co. · Goesaert v. Cleary · Tanner v. Little
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he selling of selected goods at a loss in order to lure customers into the store.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This Court in other contexts has upheld, against a challenge based on the Fourteenth Amendment, state tax laws which discriminated against the use of trading stamps. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342 [ 36 S.Ct. 370 , 60 L.Ed. 679 ]; Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369 [ 36 S.Ct. 379 , 60 L.Ed. 691 ]; Pitney v. [State of] Washington, 240 U.S. 387 [ 36 S.Ct. 385 , 60 L.Ed. 703 ].” Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, Inc., 1959, 360 U.S. 334, 339 , footnote 4, 79 S.Ct. 1196, 1200 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1280 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . In the instant case, Safeway obviously and admittedly did not, in good faith, set the price of its articles which were subject to the Unfair Sales Act on the basis of its competitors’ prices, which it in good faith believed to be legal prices under the Unfair Sales Act, but on the contrary it set illegal prices for the sole purpose of meeting prices of its competitors, which it thought to be illegal.””
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.