Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.2d 170 - Grace v. E. J. Kozin Co.

Grace v. E. J. Kozin Co.’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.2d 170 · 1976

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2004
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2004 · most notably Truett Payne Company Inc v. Chrysler Motors Corporation (1981), Stephen Jay Photography, Ltd. v. Olan Mills, Inc. (1990)

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

1301976198019902000decided

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 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Kalb v. Feuerstein · Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co. · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Federal Trade Commission v. Broch

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(c) It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to pay or grant, or to receive or accept, anything of value as a commission, brokerage, or other compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu thereof, except for services rendered in connection with the sale or purchase of goods, wares, or merchandise, either to the other party to such transaction or to an agent, representative, or other intermediary therein where such direct or indirect control, of any party to such transaction other than the person by whom such compensation is so granted or paid.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the net effect of Kozin’s bribery was indirect price discrimination with regard to the prices charged Greene by suppliers potentially common to Kozin and Greene. Thus, because of Kane’s interest in the transactions, Greene acquired goods at a price higher than that paid by Kozin or than that which would have been paid by Greene purchasing independently or as Kozin’s equal partner. This injury is entitled to redress under Section 2(c).”
    1 later decision 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.