Lepage's Incorporated v. 3m (Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Company)’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.3d 141 · 2003
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. (2011), West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC (2010)
34 federal appellate · 22 district · 3 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
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“courts must look to the monopolist's conduct taken as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff ... contends that defendant has bundled price discounts for its primary, secondary, and tertiary acute care products and that doing so is anticompetitive. Bundled pricing occurs when price discounts are offered for purchasing an entire line of services exclusively from one supplier. Bundled price discounts may be anti-competitive if they are offered by a monopolist and substantially foreclose portions of the market to a competitor who does not provide an equally diverse group of services and who therefore cannot make a comparable offer.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”
2 later decisions 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.