White Motor Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
668 federal appellate · 131 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,465 later decisions (101 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Estes v. Texas (1965), Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation (1984)
668 federal appellate · 131 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 19 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States
Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & 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 1,465 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“naked restraints of trade with no purpose except stifling competition,”
33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“pernicious effect on competition and lack . . . any redeeming virtue”
12 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.