Hodges’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2014
1 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
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Mayers 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]ecause plaintiffs did not allege, nor could they, that the illegal antitrust conduct was a necessary predicate to their injury or that defendants could exclude plaintiffs only by engaging in the antitrust violation, it was appropriate to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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“lawful refusal to grant plaintiffs access to their private property.”
2 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.