Greyhound Computer Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.2d 488 · 1977
Citation profile
89 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Edward J. Sweeney & Sons, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc. (1980), William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (1981)
89 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 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
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey 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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“otherwise lawful practices that unnecessarily excluded competition”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A single firm that did not control something close to 50 percent of the entire market, see Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., supra, 512 F.2d at 1274, would be free to indulge in any activity however unreasonable, predatory, destructive of competition and without legitimate business justification. Any concern not dangerously close to monopoly power could deliberately destroy its competitors with impunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e need not decide whether IBM’s product line constitutes a separate submarket for antitrust purposes. . . . Greyhound asserts that by offering a complete product line of general purpose commercial systems, IBM is able to “lock in” users who select IBM equipment initially, and limit competition to leasing companies carrying IBM systems. We intimate no view on whether such evidence establishes an economically distinct submarket.”
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.