Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 547 U.S. 1 - Texaco Inc. v. Dagher

Texaco Inc. v. Dagher’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

316
cited by 316 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 36 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 316 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. (2007), Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, Inc. (2008)

87 federal appellate · 36 district · 18 state decisions

2130200620102020decided

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

reviewedDagher v. Saudi Refining Inc. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)

Relies on National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States · State Oil Co. v. Khan · Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society · Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc. · Dagher v. Saudi Refining Inc.

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

  1. “demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive before it will be found unlawful.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Texaco and Shell Oil did not compete with one another in the relevant market — namely, the sale of gasoline to service stations in the western United States — but instead participated in that market jointly through their investments in Equilon.... [Tjhough Equi-lon’s pricing policy may be price fixing in a literal sense, it is not price fixing in the antitrust sense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “persons who would otherwise be competitors pool their capital and share the risks of loss as well as the opportunities for profit ... such joint ventures [are] regarded as a single firm competing with other sellers in the market.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.