The Flintkote Company, a Corporation v. Elmer Lysfjord and Walter R. Waldron, Doing Business as Aabeta Co.’s Empirical Analysis
246 F.2d 368 · 1957
Citation profile
176 federal appellate · 17 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 291 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Sterling (1992), Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and the House of Seagram, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., Barton Distilling Company v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd. (1969)
176 federal appellate · 17 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Glasser v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Krulewitch v. United States · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper 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 291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'just and reasonable estimate of the damage,'”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The non-compensatory share of the award is akin to the award of exemplary or punitive damages. In the case of punitive damages joint tortfeasors are liable for the entire amount, not merely the compensatory part. Further, a niggardly construction of the treble damage provisions would do violence to the clear intent of Congress. The private antitrust action is an important and effective method of combat-ting unlawful and destructive business practices. The private suitor complements the Government in enforcing the antitrust laws. The treble damage provision was designed to foster and stimulate the interest of private persons in maintaining a free and competitive economy. Its efficacy should not be weakened by judicial construction. “Moreover, a contrary result would put a premium on litigation and discourage settlements. It is not the policy of the law to encourage litigatipn at the expense of compromise.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A study of the adjudicated cases in this area readily dispels any impression that this question of damages is governed by an application of the common law rule of reasonable certainty. The cases have long since departed from this rule in antitrust litigation. 55 "Preliminarily, it should be observed that the reasons underlying the evolutionary trend toward liberality in proving damages are grounded in logic and sound policy. Two principal factors have influenced the courts. First, the self-evident intangible nature of the subject matter. To ascertain what would have been is as difficult as trying to determine what should be. 56 "Second, the legal maxim that a wrongdoer should not profit by his wrong. In light of the intrinsic uncertainty surrounding this problem, the responsibility for which lies in large measure with the defendant found liable, it has long been felt that this presents an ideal situation for application of that doctrine.”
3 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.