United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 67 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 355 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc (1977), Gulf Oil Corporation v. Copp Paving Company Inc (1974)
101 federal appellate · 67 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 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 · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. · White Motor Company v. United States · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States
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 355 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be substantially to lessen competition”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Section 7 of the Clayton Act provides: “Sec. 7. That no corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. “No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of one or more corporations engaged in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. “This section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment and not using the same by voting or otherwise to bring about, or in attempting to bring about, the substantial lessening of competition. Nor shall anything contained in this section prevent a corporation engaged in commerce from causing the formation of subsidiary corporations for the actual carrying on of thei”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[i]f the parent companies are in competition, or might compete absent the joint venture, it may be assumed that neither will compete with the progeny in its line of commerce,” but specifically noting that this aspect of a joint venture”
2 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.