Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association Inc v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
149 federal appellate · 57 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 381 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963)
149 federal appellate · 57 district · 24 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
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. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 15 U.S.C. § 3 (§ 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 291 (Capper-Volstead Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 292 (Capper-Volstead Act)
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · United States v. Borden 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 381 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers may act together in associations, corporate or otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing for market, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; and such associations and their members may make the necessary contracts and agreements to effect such purposes: Provided, however, That such associations are operated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof ....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.” (Emphasis added)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to organize together, set association policy, fix prices at which their cooperative will sell their produce, and otherwise carry on like a business corporation without thereby violating the antitrust laws.”
3 later decisions 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.