United States v. Loew's Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
275 federal appellate · 72 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 810 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966), Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. (1968)
275 federal appellate · 72 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 15 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29
Relies on Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
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 810 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)hey are unreasonable in and of themselves whenever a party has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product and a 'not insubstantial' amount of interstate commerce is affected.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e do not construe this general language as requiring anything more than sufficient economic power to impose an appreciable restraint on free competition in the tied product (assuming all the time, of course, that a “not insubstantial” amount of interstate commerce is affected).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . are an object of anti-trust concern for two reasons they may force buyers into giving up the purchase of substitutes for the tied product, . . . and they may destroy the free access of competing suppliers of the tied product to the consuming market . . ..”
4 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.