United States v. American Cyanamid Co.’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 558 · 1983
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Berger v. Heckler (1985), Geneva Pharmaceuticals Technology Corp. v. Barr Laboratories Inc. (2004)
21 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · United States v. Swift & Co. · United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen the language of a consent decree provision is not clear on its face, a court of equity may, in construing the provision, consider the purpose of the provision in the overall context of the judgment at the time the judgment was entered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Most important among the factors are the nature and economic purpose of the arrangement, the likelihood and size of any market foreclosure, the extent of concentration of sellers and buyers in the industry, the capital cost required to enter the market, the market share needed by a buyer or seller to achieve a profitable level of production (sometimes referred to as “scale economy”), the existence of a trend toward vertical concentration or oligopoly in the industry, and whether the merger will eliminate potential competition by one of the merging parties. To these factors may be added the degree of market power that would be possessed by the merged enterprise and the number and strength of competing suppliers and purchasers, which might indicate whether the merger would increase the risk that prices or terms would cease to be competitive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We therefore reverse the decision of the district court insofar as it holds that ‘the conditions which the decree was designed to remedy no longer exist [and] the decree should be terminated,’ and we remand for the district court to apply the factors for analyzing the legality of a vertical merger set forth by Brown Shoe [ 370 U.S. 294 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962)], Fruehauf [Corp. v. FTC, 603 F.2d 345 (2d Cir.1979)], and other applicable cases, and to make findings of fact as to the current state of the melamine market and the market for products that contain melamine.” 719 F.2d at 567 .”
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.