Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
369 F.2d 449 · 1966
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1997 · most notably William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (1981), Case-Swayne Co. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. (1968)
29 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Relationships
Applies 1 U.S.C. § 1 · 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 7 U.S.C. § 291
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] party has monopoly power if it has, over ‘any part of the trade or commerce among the several states,’ a power of controlling prices or unreasonably restricting competition.”
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.