Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1,413 federal appellate · 704 district · 191 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,886 later decisions (70 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation (1986), Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007)
1,413 federal appellate · 704 district · 191 state decisions — followed in 30 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
reviewedNbo Industries Treadway Companies, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.
Cited together with Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation
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 4,886 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.”
404 later decisions quote this exact passage“prove an actual lessening of competition in order to recover. [C]ompetitors may be able to prove antitrust injury before they actually are driven from the market and competition is thereby lessened.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, ... where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.