Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 517 F.2d 567 - Salco Corporation, Formerly Known and Doing Business as Denver Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division

Salco Corporation, Formerly Known and Doing Business as Denver Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division’s Empirical Analysis

517 F.2d 567 · 1975

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated (1977), Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc. (1980)

41 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

28019751980199020002010decided

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

Relies on United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co. · United States v. Yellow Cab Co. · Eason v. Dandridge · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Federal Power Commission v. Southern California Edison 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[s]pecific intent to monopolize is the heart of a conspiracy charge, ... a plaintiff is not required to prove what is the `relevant market.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC · 249 F. Supp. 2d 622 - ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.
  2. “the duty of each party to any franchise . . . to act in a fair and equitable manner toward each other so as to guarantee the one party freedom from coercion, intimidation, or threats of coercion or intimidation from the other party . . . .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, and Donald E. Fray v. General Motors Corporation · Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
  3. “evidenced by acts of coercion or intimidation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 52 Va. App. 751 - Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Smit · Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.

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.