Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 29 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 258 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993), Jf Feeser Inc v. Serv-a-Portion Inc (1990)
71 federal appellate · 29 district · 17 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
reviewedHasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co
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 258 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such 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 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[S]uppliers granting functional discounts either to single-function or integrated buyers should not be held responsible for any consequences of their customers’ pricing tactics. Price cutting at the resale level is not in fact, and should not be held in law, ‘the effect of a differential that merely accords due recognition and reimbursement for actual marketing functions.... “On the other hand, the law should tolerate no subterfuge. For instance, where a wholesaler-retailer buys only part of his goods as a wholesaler, he must not claim a functional discount on all. Only to the extent that a buyer actually performs certain functions, assuming all the risk, investment, and costs involved, should he legally qualify for a functional discount. Hence a distributor should be eligible for a discount corresponding to any part of the function he actually performs on that part of the goods for which he performs it.””
2 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.