The pls.com, LLC v. Nar’s Empirical Analysis
2022
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether the alleged procompetitive benefits of [the challenged restraint] outweigh its alleged anticompetitive effects is a factual question that the district court cannot resolve on the pleadings”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the procompetitive efficiencies could be reasonably achieved through less anticompetitive means.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reduced output . . . [and] decreased quality in the relevant market,”
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.