Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 U.S. 508 - California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

3,653
cited by 3,653 later decisions
70
cited 70 times by the Supreme Court
36
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

950 federal appellate · 511 district · 404 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,653 later decisions (70 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Hudson v. Palmer (1984), Lewis Director Arizona Department of Corrections v. Casey (1996)

950 federal appellate · 511 district · 404 state decisions — followed in 36 states

1.1k0197219801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedTrucking Unlimited v. California Motor Transport Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Parker v. Brown · United Mine Workers v. Pennington

Cited together with Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. · Parker v. Brown · Conley v. Gibson

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 3,653 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We conclude that it would be destructive of rights of association and of petition to hold that groups with common interests may not, without violating the antitrust laws, use the channels and procedures of state and federal agencies and courts to advocate their causes and points of view respecting resolution of their business and economic interests vis-a-vis their competitors.”
    138 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims”
    60 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “unethical conduct in the setting of the adjudicatory process”
    23 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.