Morgan v. Division of Liquor Control’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 353 · 1981
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2011 · most notably 324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy (1987), Municipal Utilities Bd. of Albertville v. Alabama Power Co. (1991)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 Parker v. Brown · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. · Walter v. United States · Fuchs Sugars & Syrups, Inc. v. Amstar Corp.
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.
“the State of Connecticut establishes the markup and does not permit private parties to engage in resale price maintenance. The State of Connecticut does not control the initial offering price determined by the manufacturers or out-of-state shipper. Once that price is reported and without any compulsion or participation by the State, the statutory scheme defines the wholesale and retail prices which must be charged. Unlike the California statute in Midcal , the Connecticut statutes do not authorize or compel private parties to enter contracts or combinations to fix prices in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“essentially on the grounds stated in Judge Daly’s well-reasoned opinion”
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.