Sullivan v. Tagliabue’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 43 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine (2005), Sanner v. Board of Trade (1995)
15 federal appellate · 12 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
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready · Todoroy v. DCH Healthcare Authority
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiff; (2) an improper motive; (3) the nature of the plaintiffs alleged injury and whether the injury was of a type that Congress sought to redress with the antitrust laws (“antitrust injury”); (4) the directness with which the alleged market restraint caused the asserted injury; (5) the speculative nature of the damages; and (6) the risk of duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Antitrust injury is 'injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“By its terms § 2(a) [of the Robinson-Patman Act] is a prophylactic statute which is violated merely upon a showing that ‘the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition.’ (Emphasis supplied.) ... Section 4 of the Clayton Act, in contrast, is essentially a remedial statute. It provides treble damages to ‘[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws_’ (Emphasis supplied.) To recover treble damages, then, a plaintiff must make some showing of actual injury attributable to something the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.... It must prove more than a violation of § 2(a), since such proof establishes only that injury may result.”
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.