Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
842 F.2d 1034 · 1987
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably Jf Feeser Inc v. Serv-a-Portion Inc (1990), Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1995)
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 144 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for a[ ] plaintiff to prove competitive injury under Robinson-Patman, he [or she] need only show that a substantial price discrimination existed as between himself [or herself] and his [or her] competitors over a period of time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] defendant is entitled to an instruction on a defense theory if it has a basis in the law and in the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the Supreme Court long ago made clear, and recently reaffirmed, there may be a Robinson-Patman violation even if the favored and disfavored buyers do not compete, so long as the customers of the favored buyer compete with the disfavored buyer or its customers. Morton Salt, 334 U.S. at 43-44 [68 S.Ct. at 826-827]; Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U.S. 642 , 646-47 [89 S.Ct. 1871, 1873-74, 23 L.Ed.2d 599] (1969); Falls City Indus., Inc. v. Vanco Beverages, Inc., 460 U.S. 428 , 434-35 . . . [103 S.Ct. 1282, 1288-89, 75 L.Ed.2d 174] (1983). Despite the fact that Dompier and Gull, at least in their capacities as wholesalers, did not compete directly with Hasbrouck, a section 2(a) violation may occur if (1) the discount they received was not cost-based and (2) all or a portion of it was passed on by them to customers of theirs who competed with Hasbrouck. Morton Salt, 334 U.S. at 43-44 . . . [68 S.Ct., at 826-827]; Perkins v. Standard Oil, 395 U.S. at 648-49 . . . [89 S.Ct., at 1874-75]; see 3 E. Kintner & J. Bauer, supra, § 22.14. 15 "Hasbrouck presented ample evidence to demonstrate that . . . the services performed by Gull and Dompier were insubstantial and did not justify the functional discount.”
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.