Callahan v. A.E.V., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp. (2004), Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp. (2001)
11 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] plaintiff must prove a causal connection between [the antitrust violation] and actual damage suffered.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To recover damages, an antitrust plaintiff must prove causation, described in our jurisprudence as 'fact of damage or injury.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the less direct an injury is, the more difficult it becomes to ascertain the amount of plaintiffs damages attributable to the violation, as distinct from other, independent, factors. Second, quite apart from problems of proving factual causation, recognizing claims of the indirectly injured would force courts to adopt complicated rules apportioning damages among plaintiffs removed at different levels of injury from the viola-tive acts, to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries. And, finally, the need to grapple with these problems is simply unjustified by the general interest in deterring injurious conduct, since directly injured victims can generally be counted on to vindicate the law as private attorneys general, without any of the problems attendant upon suits by plaintiffs injured more remotely.”
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.