United States v. Sealy, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
172 federal appellate · 27 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 434 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Topco Associates, Inc. (1972), National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984)
172 federal appellate · 27 district · 36 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.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (§ 33 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 29
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · 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 434 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an enclave in which it could and did zealously and effectively maintain resale prices, free from the danger of outside incursions.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The territorial arrangements must be regarded as the creature of horizontal action by the licensees. It would violate reality to treat them as equivalent to territorial limitations imposed by a manufacturer upon independent dealers as incident to the sale of a trademarked product. Sealy, Inc. is an instrumentality of the licensees for purposes of the horizontal territorial allocation. It is not the principal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“unlawful under [Sec. 1 of the] Sherman Act without any necessity for inquiry in each particular case as to their business or economic justification, their impact in the marketplace or their reasonableness . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.