Federal Trade Commission v. Borden Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck (1990), Fusco v. Xerox Corp. (1982)
37 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBorden Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Mandel Bros. · Federal Trade Commission v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. · Automatic Canteen Co. of America v. Federal Trade Commission
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination . . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, ... where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination.... (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“In our previous decision, 3 we held that the marked consumer preference for the Borden brand was sufficient to differentiate the products and to place the price difference beyond the reach of Sec. 2(a). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the economic factors inherent in brand names should not be considered in the jurisdictional inquiry under the”
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.