Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
555 federal appellate · 138 district · 115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,456 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2021 · most notably Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc (1977), Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992)
555 federal appellate · 138 district · 115 state decisions — followed in 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHoward Clifford Moore v. Clarence T. Gladden, Warden (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 371 (§ 24 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States
Cited together with Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde · United States v. Loew's 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 1,456 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, the proper focus of concern is whether the seller has the power to raise prices, or impose other burdensome terms such as a tie-in, with respect to any appreciable number of buyers within the market.”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)hey are unreasonable in and of themselves whenever a party has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product and a 'not insubstantial' amount of interstate commerce is affected.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“substantial enough in terms of dollar-volume so as not to be merely de minimis.”
22 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.