Gas-A-Car, Inc. v. American Petrofina, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 1102 · 1973
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 56 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Swanson v. Bixler (1984), Moore v. Guthrie (2006)
21 federal appellate · 56 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) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · Cold Metal Process Company v. United Engineering & Foundry Company · Federal Trade Commission v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. · Reeves v. Beardall
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At the outset we note that § 4 of the Clayton Act has been given an interpretation by the courts which is more restrictive than would be the ease if the Act were read literally. Although § 4 states in part that ‘any person who shall be injured * * * may sue,’ it is clear that not all parties injured by reason of violation of the antitrust laws are able to maintain damage suits. Several examples are shareholders, officers of corporations, creditors and landlords.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in 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 to substantially lessen competition ____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“trial courts should be reluctant to enter Rule 54(b) orders since the purpose of this rule is a limited one: to provide a recourse for litigants when dismissal of less than all their claims will create undue hardships.”
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.