Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
418 federal appellate · 194 district · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,339 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), 25 Cal. 4th 826 - Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
418 federal appellate · 194 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 17 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
reviewedLiggett Group, Inc. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.
Cited together with Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · United States v. Grinnell Corp.
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 1,339 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, the exclusionary effect of prices above a relevant measure of cost either reflects the lower cost structure of the alleged predator, and so represents competition on the merits, or is beyond the practical ability of a judicial tribunal to control without courting intolerable risks of chilling legitimate price-cutting.”
78 later decisions quote this exact passage“When an expert opinion is not supported by sufficient facts to validate it in the eyes of the law, or when indisputable record facts contradict or otherwise render the opinion unreasonable, it cannot support a jury's verdict.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]utting prices in order to increase business often is the very essence of competition.”
21 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.