Albrecht v. Herald Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
484 federal appellate · 158 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,140 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated (1977), Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation (1984)
484 federal appellate · 158 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAlbrecht v. Herald Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc.
Cited together with United States v. Parke, Davis & Co. · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & 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 1,140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal .”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[m]aximum prices may be fixed too low for the dealer to furnish services essential to the value which goods have for the consumer or to furnish services and conveniences which consumers desire and for which they are willing to pay.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)here can be no doubt that a combination arose between respondent, Milne, and Kroner to force petitioner to conform to the advertised retail price. When respondent learned that petitioner was overcharging, it hired Milne to solicit customers away from petitioner in order to get petitioner to reduce his price. It was through the efforts of Milne, as well as because of respondent's letter to petitioner's customers, that about 300 customers were obtained for Kroner. Milne's purpose was undoubtedly to earn its fee, but it was aware that the aim of the solicitation campaign was to force petitioner to lower his price. Kroner knew that respondent was giving him the customer list as part of a program to get petitioner to conform to the advertised price, and he knew that he might have to return the customers if petitioner ultimately complied with respondent's demands. He undertook to deliver papers at the suggested price and materially aided in the accomplishment of respondent's plan.”
7 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.