344 F. Supp. 3d 433 - Breiding v. Eversource Energy’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 16 U.S.C. § 791A (§ 321 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 824 (§ 201 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 16 U.S.C. § 824D (§ 205 of the Federal Power Act of 1920)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. Grinnell Corp.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the difference between wholesale electricity rates during the class period and hypothetical rates that would have been charged but for [the defendants'] purported anticompetitive conduct”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the filed rate doctrine applies with equal force to Plaintiffs' state law claims, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' state law claims also fail for the reasons stated below.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Court, for the reasons previously mentioned, has dismissed all of Plaintiffs' federal claims and declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”
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.