Kirihara v. Bendix Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““The basis of the [trial court’s] ruling was that a section 7 violation can cause no damage because it establishes only that harm was threatened, not that it occurred. But if the threat ripens into reality we do not see why there can never be a private cause of action for damages. If section 7 is designed to prevent acquisitions that ‘may’ or ‘tend to’ cause specified harm, such an acquisition may either itself directly bring about the harm or make possible acts that do. We do not say that a section 7 violation must, or even probably will, have that result; but that it may and that plaintiffs should have a chance to prove injury ‘by reason of’ the violation are persuasive propositions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Isidor Weinstein Investment Co. v. Hearst Corporation

2. “. . . component of minimal competitive significance in that market . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Lenore & Company, Model Distributing Company, John P. Lenore and Robert E. Livingston v. Olympia Brewing Company