Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 F.2d 247 - Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp.

Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

39 F.2d 247 · 1930

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill Products, Inc. (1967), Booth v. Fletcher (1938)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

100193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 19 U.S.C. § 174 · 19 U.S.C. § 91 · 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · United States v. Reese · Singer Manuf'G Co v. June Manuf'G 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “That unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, or in their sale by the owner, importer, consignee, or agent of either, the effect or tendency of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry, efficiently and economically operated, in the United States, or to prevent the establishment of such an industry, or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States, are hereby declared unlawful, and when found by the President to exist shall be dealt with, in addition to any other provisions of law, as hereinafter provided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.