North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[j]ust as an employment-discrimination plaintiff need not allege `circumstances that support an inference of discrimination,' there is no need for an antitrust plaintiff to allege a `plus factor [which] generates an inference of illegal price fixing.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The SAC implies that plan sponsors share, and are aware that they share, a common strategy — ie., the utilization of a PBM to combine purchasing power and drive down pharmacy costs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`plus factor' allegations serve to substantiate a plaintiff's conspiracy allegation; their purpose is not to clarify an otherwise incomprehensible claim,”
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.