Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 canonical passages across 10 cases, quoted by 133 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 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brown Shoe Co. v. United States Anchor | green | “the outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it.” | 47 |
| 2 | Brown Shoe Co. v. United States | green | “industry or public recognition of the submarket as a separate economic entity, the product's peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors.” | 25 |
| 3 | United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. | green | “reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes.” | 23 |
| 4 | United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab | green | “undue concentration in the market for a particular product in a particular geographic area.” | 10 |
| 5 | Thurman Industries, Inc. v. Pay 'N Pak Stores, Inc. | green | “the group or groups of sellers or producers who have actual or potential ability to deprive each other of significant levels of business.” | 7 |
| 6 | Federal Trade Commission v. Staples, Inc. | green | “the mere fact that a firm may be termed a competitor in the overall marketplace does not necessarily require that it be included in the relevant product market for antitrust purposes.” | 6 |
| 7 | Tafford E. Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital, Tafford E. Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital | green | “the product market includes the pool of goods or services that enjoy reasonable interchangeability of use and cross-elasticity of demand.” | 5 |
| 8 | Federal Trade Commission v. Exxon Corporation | green | “as a result of the short life-span of most tender offers, the issuance of a preliminary injunction blocking an acquisition or merger may prevent the transaction from ever being consummated.” | 3 |
| 9 | Federal Trade Commission v. Arch Coal, Inc. | green | “antitrust theory and speculation cannot trump facts, and even section 13(b) cases must be resolved on the basis of the record evidence relating to the market and its probable future.” | 3 |
| 10 | Federal Trade Commission v. CCC Holdings Inc. | green | “courts have rarely, if ever, denied a preliminary injunction solely based on the likely efficiencies.” | 2 |
| 11 | Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco Corporation | green | “(i) the public interest in effectively enforcing antitrust law and (ii) the public interest in ensuring that the ftc has the ability to order effective relief if it succeeds at the merits trial.” | 2 |
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.