Henry v. Chloride, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1334 · 1987
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Street v. Jc Bradford & Company (1989), Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to prevail on its predatory pricing claim, [International] has the burden of proving that defendants’ overall pricing structure in the relevant markets is below some appropriate measure of cost. Prices above average total cost are legal per se. If you find that defendants’ prices in the relevant markets were above average total cost, then you must rule for the defendants on [International’s] claim, without regard to any other evidence of alleged predatory conduct. “Average total cost” is the sum of all costs, fixed and variable, divided by total output. Prices below average total cost but above average variable cost are presumptively legal. If you find that defendants priced below average total cost but above average variable cost in the relevant markets, [International] must overcome a strong presumption of legality by showing other factors indicating that the price charged was anticompetitive — that is, that defendants were acting predatorily. “Average variable cost” is the sum of all variable costs — those costs that vary with output — divided by output.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a marker of rebuttable presumptions, with the plaintiff holding the burden above and the defendant below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“at some point competitors should know for certain they are pricing legally,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morgan v. Ponder · Morgan v. Ponder
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.