Solomon v. Houston Corrugated Box Co.’s Empirical Analysis
526 F.2d 389 · 1976
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2012 · most notably Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. (1981), United States v. Hartley (1982)
49 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · United States v. Colgate & Co. · Gooding v. United States · Bridges v. United States
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Summary judgment] is appropriate . . . when “it is plain that the allegedly unlawful practice does not exist, and that plaintiff’s claim is without merit.” The mere allegation of the Sherman Act claim requirements of a contract, combination, or conspiracy for the purpose of restraining trade or interstate commerce and resulting damages are not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment once they have been rebutted.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“presented any credible evidence, by affidavit, deposition or documentation, other than his own general and conclusory statements, that any monopolistic conspiracy or agreement existed among the alleged wrongdoers. In light of this fatal hiatus, the intent, motive, or state of mind of the defendants are irrelevant. There simply is no Sherman Act violation, no matter how malevolent the competition may be, without a contract, combination, monopoly or conspiracy in restraint of trade. Id. at 395 .”
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.