Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
517 federal appellate · 114 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,413 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992), State Oil Co. v. Khan (1997)
517 federal appellate · 114 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 14 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
reviewedIndiana Federation of Dentists v. Federal Trade Commission (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States
Cited together with National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co. · National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service 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 1,413 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
85 later decisions quote this exact passage“'proof of actual detrimental effects, such as a reduction of output' can obviate the need for an inquiry into market power, which is but a 'surrogate for detrimental effects.'”
37 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a naked restriction on price or output' and that such a restriction 'requires some competitive justification even in the absence of a detailed market analysis.' " Id. at 460, 106 S.Ct. at 2018 (quoting NCAA, 468 U.S. at 109-10, 104 S.Ct. at 2964-65). The Court went on to hold that "even if the restriction imposed ... is not sufficiently 'naked' to call this principle into play,”
7 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.