Ad Bedell Wholesale Company Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 4 state decisions

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. “[T]he injury in Midcal was caused by private parties taking advantage of the state imposed market structure . . . Even though, as defendants argue, the Multistate Settlement Agreement created the cartel, this fact makes the case analogous to Midcal, not different.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Maleng · Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer

2. “A petitioner may be immune from the antitrust injuries which result from the petitioning itself. See Noerr, 365 U.S. at 143 , 81 S.Ct. 523 , 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (finding trucking industry plaintiffs’ relationships with their customers and the public were hurt by the railroads’ petitioning activities, yet the railroads were immune from liability). Also, ... parties are immune from liability arising from the antitrust injuries caused by government action which result from the petitioning. See Pennington, 381 U.S. at 671 , 85 S.Ct. 1585 , 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (holding plaintiffs could not recover damages resulting from the state’s actions) .... Therefore, if its conduct constitutes valid petitioning, the petitioner is immune from antitrust liability whether or not the injuries are caused by the act of petitioning or are caused by government action which results from the petitioning.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 564 F. Supp. 2d 385 - Byers v. Intuit, Inc. · 249 F. Supp. 2d 463 - Santana Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

3. “Otherwise, plaintiffs could sue only the private parties and by winning antitrust judgments against them, could thwart state policies as if there were no state [[Immunity.” Id. (citation omitted). 14 . Plaintiffs also alleged violations of the Commerce Clause and Compact Clause. 15 . The Mañana court noted that the four major tobacco companies were not named as defendants there as a result of its decision in A.D. Bedell that the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 393 F. Supp. 2d 604 - S & M BRANDS, INC. v. Summers