Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 F.2d 867 - Peter v. Western Newspaper Union

Peter v. Western Newspaper Union’s Empirical Analysis

200 F.2d 867 · 1953

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably Stein v. United Artists Corp. (1982), Adair v. Wozniak (1986)

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

901953196019701980decided

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. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 25 U.S.C. § 15

Relies on Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Publishing Co. · Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp. · Ring v. Spina · Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co. · Niles v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the present case under the averments of the complaint, prior to the sale of the stock, its depreciation in value had already been suffered from injuries directly affecting the corporation rather than the stockholder. The sale of the shares of stock resulted in no further loss to the stockholder but substituted for the already depreciated value of the stock money supposedly of equal value.” (200 F.2d p. 872.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor * * * and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.””
    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.