Fox West Coast Theatres Corporation, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and Loew's, Incorporated v. Paradise Theatre Building Corporation, Paradise Theatre Building Corporation v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corporation, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and Loew's, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n cases where the defendants' acts are motivated by intent to injure the plaintiff, the inferential leap to the finding of fact of damage is not great. Indeed, one court has found it virtually nonexistent: 'Such damage need not be made patent item by item as on a balance sheet. The mere unlawful combination over a period of time to eliminate competition is proof of damage.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 194 F. Supp. 507 - Samuel Goldwyn Productions, Inc. v. Fox West Coast Theatres Corp. · Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed

2. ““ * * * Once it is found that there was substantial evidence that these three organizations combined unlawfully to discriminate against Paradise, then evidence of action by others tending to produce the unlawful result may be corroborative of the charge, even though these others may not be found eventually to have been conspirators. The jury may clear some participants in parallel action for lack of knowledge of the scheme or unlawful design or because they were coerced. Thus, although each may have been a participant in acts which tended to effectuate the result complained of, the jury may have found them innocent tools of the conspirators whom • the jury found unlawfully formulated, carried on and did overt acts charged to bring about the isolation of Paradise. The jury had a right and the duty to consider the record as a whole and determine who, if any, were participants in an unlawful combination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.