Speakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServ, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.3d 862 · 1999
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably 216 Ill. 2d 100 - Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2005), 227 Ill. 2d 45 - Barbara's Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (2007)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on 131 Ill. 2d 145 - HPI Health Care Services, Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hospital, Inc. · 15 Cal. 4th 951 - Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. · 69 Ill. 2d 320 - Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School · Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp. · 11 Cal. 4th 376 - Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ompetition, which though painful, fierce, frequently ruthless, sometimes Darwinian in its pitilessness, is the cornerstone of our highly successful economic system. Competition is not a tort . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It can be argued ... that competition can be tortious even if it does not involve an actionable fraud ... or other independently tortious act, such as defamation, or trademark or patent infringement, or a theft of a trade secret; that competitors should not be allowed to use “unfair” tactics; and that a promise known by the promisor when made to be unfulfillable is such a tactic, especially when used on a relatively unsophisticated, albeit very well to do, baseball player. Considerable support for this view can be found in the case law.... But the Illinois courts have not as yet embraced the doctrine, and we are not alone in thinking it pernicious. Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 11 Cal.4th 376 , 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436 , 902 P.2d 740, 760-763 (Cal.1995) (concurring opinion) .... We agree with Professor Perl-man that the tort of interference with business relationships should be confined to cases in which the defendant employed unlawful means to stiff a competitor, and we are reassured by the conclusion of his careful analysis that the ease law is generally consistent with this position as a matter of outcomes as distinct from articulation. 37”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[I]nducing the termination of a contract, even when the termination is not a breach because the contract is terminable at will, can still be actionable under the tort law of Illinois, either as an interference with prospective economic advantage, ... or as an interference with the contract at will itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Webb v. Frawley
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.