Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 F.3d 430 - Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

124 F.3d 430 · 1997

Citation profile

215
cited by 215 later decisions
3
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 53 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 215 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Todd v. Exxon Corp. (2001), E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. (2011)

40 federal appellate · 53 district · 4 state decisions

10201997200020102020decided

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 United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated

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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Where the plaintiff fails to define its proposed relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed relevant market that clearly does not encompass all interchangeable substitute products even when all factual inferences are granted in plaintiffs favor, the relevant market is legally insufficient and a motion to dismiss may be granted.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'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.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[i]nterchangeability' implies that one product is roughly equivalent to another for the use to which it is put.”
    8 later decisions 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.