Federal Trade Commission v. Simplicity Pattern Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 23 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 302 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Federal Trade Commission v. Fred Meyer, Inc. (1968), Federal Trade Commission v. Broch (1960)
170 federal appellate · 23 district · 4 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
reviewedSimplicity Pattern Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from District of Columbia 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 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt 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 302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Comparable competitive advantages were obtained by the large purchasers in several ways other than direct price concessions. Rebates were induced “for brokerage fees,” even though no brokerage services had been performed. “Advertising allowances” were paid by the sellers to the large buyers in return for certain promotional services undertaken by the latter. Some sellers furnished special services or facilities to the chain buyers. Lacking the purchasing power to demand comparable advantages, the small independent stores were at a hopeless competitive disádván-tage.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Portland 76 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. · 1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,237, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6428, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8897 Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation National Auto/truckstops Incorporated, and Gordon A. Barron, Jr. Joan L. Barron, Counter-Defendants-Appellants. Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation, and National Auto/truckstops Incorporated William Osborne Paul Kohler“services and facilities not accorded to competing smaller customers on proportionally equal terms.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,237, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6428, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8897 Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation National Auto/truckstops Incorporated, and Gordon A. Barron, Jr. Joan L. Barron, Counter-Defendants-Appellants. Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation, and National Auto/truckstops Incorporated William Osborne Paul Kohler · Alan's of Atlanta, Inc. v. Minolta Corp.“contracting to furnish or furnishing ... services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carlo C. Gelardi Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co. · 1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,237, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6428, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8897 Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation National Auto/truckstops Incorporated, and Gordon A. Barron, Jr. Joan L. Barron, Counter-Defendants-Appellants. Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation, and National Auto/truckstops Incorporated William Osborne Paul Kohler
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.