← 140 F.3d 1166 - Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp.

Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

140 F.3d 1166 · 1998

Citation profile

cited by 34 later decisions

states following

March 2017

most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Dickson v. Microsoft Corp. (2002), Murphy v. Federal Deposit Insurance (2000)

9 federal appellate · 7 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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 22 (§ 12 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Reiter v. Sonotone 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“immediate buyer from the alleged antitrust violator[],”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 283 F. Supp. 2d 1088 - Sample v. Monsanto Co. · 657 F. Supp. 2d 1069 - St. Francis Medical Center v. CR Bard, Inc.
“An indirect purchaser is one who bears some portion of a monopoly overcharge only by virtue of an antecedent transaction between the monopolist and another, independent purchase.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp. · 657 F. Supp. 2d 1069 - St. Francis Medical Center v. CR Bard, Inc.
“from a monopoly supplier could sue for treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act. See § 15 U.S.C. 15.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 283 F. Supp. 2d 1088 - Sample v. Monsanto Co. · 462 F. Supp. 2d 1025 - McIntosh v. Monsanto Co.

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.