United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
658 federal appellate · 192 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,480 later decisions (64 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. (1968), Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982)
658 federal appellate · 192 district · 81 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 15 U.S.C. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co.
Cited together with United States v. Colgate & Co. · Albrecht v. Herald Co. · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil 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 1,480 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court's wide discretion in fashioning remedies is not to be exercised to deny relief altogether by lightly inferring an abandonment of the unlawful activities from a cessation which seems timed to anticipate suit.”
69 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Representatives called contemporaneously upon the retailers involved, individually, and told each that if he did not observe the suggested minimum retail prices, Parke Davis would refuse to deal with him, and that furthermore he would be unable to purchase any Parke Davis products from the wholesalers. Each of the retailers was also told that his competitors were being similarly informed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, if [the large retailer’s] resumed adherence to the Parke Davis price scale after the interview between its vice-president and Parke Davis’ assistant branch manager, [p. 510] supra, shows that Parke Davis and [the retailer] entered into a price maintenance agreement, express, tacit or implied, such agreement violated the Sherman Act without regard to any wholesalers’ participation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.