Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 U.S. 405 - United States v. Wise

United States v. Wise’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

490
cited by 490 later decisions
35
cited 35 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

206 federal appellate · 18 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 490 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Central Bank of Denver Na v. First Interstate Bank of Denver Na K (1994), Morton v. Ruiz (1974)

206 federal appellate · 18 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 13 states

16201962197019801990200020102020decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 24 (§ 14 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 7 (§ 8 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968)

Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · United States v. Dotterweich · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath

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 490 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Congressional inaction lacks persuasive significance because several equally tenable inferences may be drawn from such inaction, including the inference that the existing legislation already incorporated the offered change.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a corporate officer is subject to prosecution under § 1 of the Sherman Act whenever he knowingly participates in effecting the illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy—be he one who authorizes, orders, or helps perpetrate the crime—re gardless of whether he is acting in a representative capacity.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “statutes are construed by the courts with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the passage”
    5 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.