Duct-O-Wire Company v. US Crane Incorporated W’s Empirical Analysis
31 F.3d 506 · 1994
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Sunward Electronics, Inc. v. McDonald (2004), Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. (2010)
7 federal appellate · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co. · Storck Usa Lp Kg v. Farley Candy Company · 122 Wis. 2d 656 - Cudd v. Crownhart · 182 Wis. 2d 274 - Wausau Medical Center v. Asplund
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“And therein lies the crux of this case. The district court’s order allows buyers of [defendant’s] products to make a decision — from whom to buy — with more information rather than less. The order makes certain that potential buyers of [defendant’s] products know who it is they are calling. That is all it does.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“recognizes as a cause of action the tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the opportunity to maintain and develop relationships with existing and potential customers.”
1 later decision 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.