Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 F.3d 131 - Kurt Eichorn

Kurt Eichorn’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Bibby v. United States

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

  1. “[T]he antitrust laws were designed to protect market-wide anticompetitive activities”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To prove a prima facie case under § [1140] a plaintiff must show (1) that an employer took specific actions (2) for the purpose of interfering (3) with an employee’s attainment of pension benefit rights ____ [0]nee a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the employer has the burden of articulating a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for his conduct. Then, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s rationale was pre-textual and that the cancellation of benefits was the “determinative influence” on the employer’s actions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) corporate parents and their wholly owned subsidiaries have “complete unity of interest”; (2) “their objectives are common, not disparate”; and (3) their actions are “guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousnesses, but one.””
    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.