Continental Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 3 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Supreme Court has authorized three methods of analysis: (1) per se analysis, for obviously anticompetitive restraints, (2) quick-look analysis, for those with some procompetitive justification, and (3) the full `rule of reason,' for restraints whose net impact on competition is particularly difficult to determine.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission · No. 01-2458

2. “fills in the continuum between per se analysis and the full rule of reason,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. VIRGINIA VERMICULITE, LIMITED v. THE HISTORIC GREEN SPRINGS, INCORPORATED, AND W.R. GRACE & COMPANY — CONNECTICUT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THE LAND TRUST ALLIANCE, AMICI CURIAE. VIRGINIA VERMICULITE, LIMITED v. THE HISTORIC GREEN SPRINGS, INCORPORATED, AND W.R. GRACE & COMPANY — CONNECTICUT, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION THE LAND TRUST ALLIANCE, AMICI CURIAE · Virginia Vermiculite Limited v. Historic Green Springs Incorporated Wr

3. “Moreover, beyond the general need for greater cooperation at Dulles than at other airports, United and Continental each make a more specific claim, related to Dulles’s unique configuration, as to why their respective preferred outcomes benefit competition. Each argues that only a uniform policy in accordance with its preference will make possible an entire service that would not otherwise be available at Dulles: assertedly, Continental must win to offer flights with carry-on largesse, and United must win to offer flights with carry-on rigor. The district court may ultimately have to choose between two pro-competitive claims; either outcome would both help and hurt competition, and which helps competition more than the other may be far from plain.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Northwest Airlines Corp.