Belliston v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
455 F.2d 175 · 1972
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1978), Gulf Oil Corporation v. Copp Paving Company Inc (1974)
31 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission · United States v. Container Corporation of America · Andrews v. United States
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“at least one of the two transactions which, when compared, generate a discrimination . . . cross(es) a state line,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present case there is no question but that the defendant was engaged in commerce, but it is contended that the discriminating sales complained of were not made ‘in the course of such commerce’ and therefore were not in violation of the Act. The authorities appear to hold that it is not enough under the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, that the defendant be engaged in interstate commerce but it must also be shown that the sale complained of was one occurring in interstate commerce, [citations omitted] * * * The cases recognize a distinction between the commerce which is covered by the Sherman Act and that covered by the Robinson-Patman Act. ‘In an action brought under the Robinson-Patman Act it is necessary to allege and prove that the transactions complained of are actually in interstate commerce, while in actions brought under the Sherman AntiTrust Act it is sufficient if the transactions complained of are shown to have affected interstate commerce.’ * * * Accordingly, cases involving liability under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act where it was sufficient to show that the sales affected interstate commerce are not applicable to our present case. In the present case, the price discrimination relied upon was by reason of sales in the area of competition and sales in and around the City of Marion, Ohio. These sales by the defendant were from defendant’s processing plant in Shelby, Ohio, and were purely intrastate transactions, not interstate in character, a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he production of gasoline from crude oil is a highly complex process requiring expensive, precision equipment and skilled technicians * * *. [Thus] when crude oil is refined into gasoline, the character of these products is so changed that they cannot be equated as the ‘same stuff’ to satisfy the requirements of the ‘flow of commerce’ theory.”
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.