Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 F.3d 215 - Spectators' Communication Network Inc. v. Colonial Country Club

Spectators' Communication Network Inc. v. Colonial Country Club’s Empirical Analysis

253 F.3d 215 · 2001

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably United States v. Solis (2002), Dickson v. Microsoft Corp. (2002)

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

220200120102020decided

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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists

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

  1. “an integral part of a boycott is often bringing pressure to bear (“persuading or coercing”) on other participants who have no direct motive to restrain trade. Conspirators who are not competitors of the victim may have no interest in curtailing competition in a market in which they do not compete; nevertheless, when they have been enticed or coerced to share in an anti-competitive scheme, there is still a combination within the meaning of the Sherman Act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the `combination or conspiracy' element of a section 1 violation is not negated by the fact that one or more of the co-conspirators acted unwillingly, reluctantly, or only in response to coercion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he purpose of the inquiries into market definition and market power is to determine whether an arrangement has the potential for genuine adverse effects on competition.”
    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.