In re Potash Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation v. Usa, In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation (1996)
1 federal appellate · 39 district · 8 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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Relies on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · In re Disbarment of Allison · Bogosian v. Gulf Oil 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the fact that an illegal [activity] tends to favor the long-term interests of several large members of the putative class is not sufficient to prevent class certification. This is not an interest the law is willing to protect. See 3B Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.06-2 at 23-182 (2d ed. 1993 & Supp. 1994) (a court is not authorized to dismiss a class action based upon a substantial legal claim merely because some members of the class prefer to leave the violation of their rights unremedied) (citing cases).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The great weight of authority indicates that, absent exceptional circumstances, individual questions that arise in proving fraudulent concealment will not operate to prohibit certification of a class seeking certification to pursue a price-fixing conspiracy.”
1 later decision 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.