Monfort of Colorado, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
761 F.2d 570 · 1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“consider[ed] to be a form of predatory pricing in which Excel will drive other companies out of the market by paying more to its cattle suppliers and charging less for boxed beef that it sells to institutional buyers and consumers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the antitrust laws . . . were enacted for 'the protection of competition, not competitors. '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Monfort would only be harmed by sustained predatory pricing”
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.