United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
581 federal appellate · 120 district · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,360 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown (1997), Payne v. Tennessee (1991)
581 federal appellate · 120 district · 114 state decisions — followed in 20 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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. § 29
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
Cited together with Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · White Motor Company v. United States · United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. · United States v. Topco Associates, Inc.
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 1,360 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here a manufacturer sells products to his distributor subject to territorial restrictions upon resale, a per se violation of the Sherman Act results. And, as we have held, the same principle applies to restrictions of outlets with which the distributors may deal and to restraints upon retailers to whom the goods are sold. Under the Sherman Act, it is unreasonable without more for a manufacturer to seek to restrict and confine areas or persons with whom an article may be traded after the manufacturer has parted with dominion over it. [ 388 U.S. at 379 , 87 S.Ct. at 1865 .]”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... if nothing more is involved than vertical “confinement” of the manufacturer’s own sales of the merchandise to selected dealers, and if competitive products are readily available to others, the restriction, on these facts alone, would not violate the Sherman Act.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The promotion of self-interest alone does not invoke the rule of reason to immunize otherwise illegal conduct. It is only if the conduct is not unlawful in its impact in the market place or if the self-interest coincides with the statutory concern with the preservation and promotion of competition that protection is achieved.”
16 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.