Citric Acid Litigation 7-Up Bottling Coof Jasper Inc Varni Brothers Corp 7-Up Bottling Company of Philadelphia Inc v. Archer Daniels Midland Co Inc Cargill Inc’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.3d 1090 · 1999
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably County of Tuolumne (2001), In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation (2002)
19 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service 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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the defendant can “rebut an allegation of conspiracy by showing a plausible and justifiable reason for its conduct that is consistent with proper business practice.” The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to provide specific evidence tending to show that the defendant was not engaging in permissible competitive behavior.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n expert report cannot be used to prove the existence of facts set forth therein.” citations omitted). . Because the Court does not rely on Exhibits 3 and 4 to the DiNardo Declaration, the Court need not rule on Plaintiffs’ hearsay objection to those exhibits. . Wal-Mart refers to all of its employees as”
2 later decisions 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.