National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
700 federal appellate · 215 district · 134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,027 later decisions (119 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell (1985), Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters (1983)
700 federal appellate · 215 district · 134 state decisions — followed in 24 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
reviewedUnited States v. National Society of Professional Engineers (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
Cited together with Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil 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 2,027 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the facts peculiar to the business, the history of the restraint, and the reasons why it was imposed.”
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question the court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the restraint and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts. This is not because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences.”
40 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.