Gillette Co. v. Master’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 1984 · most notably McMullan v. WOHLGEMUTH (1971), Industrial Electronics Corp. v. Cline (1964)
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
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. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corp. · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc. · Port Chester Wine & Liquor Shop, Inc. v. Miller Bros. Fruiterers, Inc. · Gulf Oil Corp. v. Mays · Weco Products Co. v. Reed Drug 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Before a court can entertain an action for a preliminary injunction under section 2 of the Act of 1935, (73 P.S. § 8), it must be established that the plaintiff-producer's products are in fair and open competition within the state. Parties cannot by agreement eliminate this requirement and confer power upon the court to enter an injunction despite lack of compliance with the statutory provision. It is fundamental that parties to a divorce action cannot waive the requirement that the libellant prove the residence necessary to establish the court's jurisdiction; nor can they by stipulation agree that the residence necessary to establish jurisdiction is complied with. Indeed, it is never within the power of litigants to invest a court with any power not conferred upon it by law, * * * Here, as in the requirement of residence in divorce actions, because of the overriding public interest in price-fixing litigation, the courts will not enforce fair trade provisions against non-signators unless all the statutory requirements are satisfied. * * * This is true notwithstanding the willingness of the parties to waive strict compliance with the legislative mandate."”
1 later decision 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.