Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 415 F.2d 55 - Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM Corp.

Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

415 F.2d 55 · 1969

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (1991), United States Steel Corporation v. Fortner Enterprises Inc (1977)

70 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 state decisions

910196919701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, . . . or fix a price charged therefor, . . . where the effect . . . may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . the 'sufficient economic power' test of per se illegality is satisfied when it appears that the seller has the power to 'impose other burdensome terms such as a tie-in with respect to any appreciable number of buyers within the market.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[tie-ins] are non-coercive, and therefore legal, only if the components are separately available to the customer on a basis as favorable to the tie-in arrangement.” Advance Business Systems & Supply Co. v. SCM Corp., supra, 415 F.2d at 62 .”
    2 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.