United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
391 federal appellate · 75 district · 180 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,040 later decisions (58 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Anderson v. City of Bessemer City (1985), Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. (1966)
391 federal appellate · 75 district · 180 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. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 29
Relies on Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · International Salt Co. v. United States · United States v. Yellow Cab Co.
Cited together with United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co. · United States v. Continental Can Co. · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City
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 1,040 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Those findings, though not the product of the workings of the district judge's mind, are formally his; they are not to be rejected out-of-hand, and they will stand if supported by evidence.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Having considered the first amended Rule 32 petition presented to the Court, the State of Alabama's amended answer, the State of Alabama's motions to dismiss, the evidence presented at trial, and the events within the personal knowledge of the Court , the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and summarily dismisses and denies the claims in Ingram's first amended Rule 32 petition.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“do not reveal the discerning line for decision”
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.