Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
215 federal appellate · 90 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 662 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (1993), City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (1991)
215 federal appellate · 90 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 16 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
reviewedIndian Head, Inc. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar
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 662 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the source, context, and nature of the anticompetitive restraint at issue.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“private standard-setting associations have traditionally been objects of antitrust scrutiny. When, however, private associations promulgate safety standards based on the merits of objective expert judgments and through procedures that prevent the standard-setting process from being biased by members with economic interests in stifling product competition, those private standards can have significant procompetitive advantages. It is this potential for procompetitive benefits that has led most lower courts to apply rule-of-reason analysis to product standard-setting by private associations.”
6 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.