DP-Tek, Inc. v. AT & T Global Information Solutions Co.’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.3d 828 · 1996
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Brokerage Concepts, Inc., v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc. (1998), Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Services, Inc. (2009)
10 federal appellate · 17 district · 2 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. · Turner v. Halliburton Co. · Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One who intentionally causes a third person not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another who is his competitor or not to continue an existing contract terminable at will does not interfere improperly with the other’s relation if (a) the relation concerns a matter involved in the competition between the actor and the other and (b) the actor does not employ wrongful means and (c) his action does not create or continue an unlawful restraint of trade and (d) his purpose is at least in part to advance his interest in competing with the other.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the existence of a business relationship or expectancy ...; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy by the defendant; (3) that, except for the conduct of the defendant, plaintiff was reasonably certain to have continued the relationship or realized the expectancy; (4) intentional misconduct by the defendant; and (5) damages suffered by plaintiff as a direct or proximate cause of defendant’s misconduct.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining whether an actor’s conduct in intentionally interfering with a contract or a prospective contractual relation of another is improper or not, consideration is given to the following factors: (a) the nature of the actor's conduct, (b) the actor’s motive (c) the interests of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes, (d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor, (e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other, (0 the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the interference and (g) the relations between the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.