143 Md. App. 43 - Davidson v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 district · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 4 (§ 4 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · California v. Arc America Corp. · Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc. · United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation,
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Antitrust violations ... are not listed in MCPA’s list of prohibited activities. ... Maryland has separate statutory schemes addressing antitrust and unfair or deceptive trade practices... The actionable unfair or deceptive trade practices listed in the [MCPA] do not include monopolistic conduct or other violations of [Maryland Antitrust Act].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“be guided by federal court interpretations of federal antitrust statutes,”
1 later decision 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.