7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab Anchor | green | “the more compelling the prima facie case, the more evidence the defendant must present to rebut it successfully.” | 6 |
| 2 | Stearns Airport Equipment Co. v. FMC Corp. | green | “if barriers in an industry are low, new entrants into the industry will appear when the monopolist raises its prices.” | 3 |
| 3 | United States v. Philadelphia National Bank | green | “the statutory test is whether the effect of the merger may be substantially to lessen competition in any line of commerce in any section of the country.” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. | green | “the existence of an aggressive, well equipped and well financed corporation engaged in the same or related lines of commerce waiting anxiously to enter an oligopolistic market would be a substantial incentive to competition which cannot be underestimated.” | 3 |
| 5 | United States v. General Dynamics Corp. | green | “thus, companies that have controlled sufficiently large shares of a concentrated market are barred from merger by 7 , not because of their past acts, but because their past performances imply an ability to continue to dominate with at least equal vigor.” | 3 |
| 6 | United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc. | green | “appellees introduced no significant evidence ....” | 3 |
| 7 | United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab | green | “because the defendants also provided compelling evidence on ease of entry into this market, we need not decide whether these findings, without more, are sufficient to rebut the government's prima facie case.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.