115 F. Supp. 312 - Harrison v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably In Re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution M.D.L. No. 31. State of California v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Robert Morgan v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of Philadelphia v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., State of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City and County of Denver v. American Motors Corporation (1973), Calderone Enterprises Corp. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. (1971)
59 federal appellate · 4 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.
Relationships
Relies on Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · United States v. Columbia Steel Co. · Emich Motors Corporation v. General Motors Corporation · Keogh v. Chicago & N W Ry Co
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)t is not possible to formulate any general rule by which to determine what injuries are too remote to bring a plaintiff within the scope of the Act . . . . Each case must be dealt with on its own facts.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The fact is that while she (the landlord) would have had a right to rental above the minimum, if earned, she had nothing more than a hope that it ever would be earned. The tenant could have operated the business, from whatever motive, so as to keep the percentage from ever exceeding the minimum, for example, by cutting admission charges, discontinuing advertising or showing nothing but foreign language or documentary films, and there would be no right which the plaintiff could have asserted against him in that respect.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] non-operating lessor-owner of a motion picture theatre who is entitled to rental based on a percentage of receipts is nonetheless not a “person ... injured in his business or property” within the meaning of section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15 , and, therefore, is not entitled to bring suit under the Act for an alleged conspiracy relating to the licensing of pictures at the theatre by the lessee-operator.”
3 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.