United States v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
445 federal appellate · 131 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,132 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982), Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated (1977)
445 federal appellate · 131 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 13 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. § 1222 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
Cited together with Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · United States v. Colgate & Co. · United States v. Parke, Davis & 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 1,132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(t)he principle of these cases is that where businessmen concert their actions in order to deprive others of access to merchandise which the latter wish to sell to the public, we need not inquire into the economic motivation underlying their conduct.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inherent in the success of the combination . . . was a substantial restraint upon price competition . . . .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(e)limination, by joint collaborative action, . . . from access to the market is a per se violation of the (Sherman) Act”
6 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.