Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 257 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993), William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (1981)
88 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGreat Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co. · Corn Products Refining Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited [under the Robinson-Patman Act].”
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.