Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 362 F.2d 52 - E. W. Wiggins Airways, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authority

E. W. Wiggins Airways, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authority’s Empirical Analysis

362 F.2d 52 · 1966

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc. (1971), Washington Gas Light Co. v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (1971)

50 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

400196619701980199020002010decided

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 Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · Parker v. Brown · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““What was done here was in the exercise of a valid governmental function. The antitrust laws are aimed at private action, not governmental action.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]ll that the plaintiff alleges is that the Authority agreed ... [to] make [the competitor] the sole and exclusive fixed base operator at Logan ... [and] entered into a lease with [the competitor] under which the [competitor] was to become the sole operator. These facts do not make out a case of conspiracy nor from them can any conspiracy be reasonably inferred. This was a simple agreement or arrangement. The fact that it was exclusive does not under these circumstances necessarily make it a conspiracy or illegal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. the only conduct of the defendants, Butler or Butler-Boston, alleged to have been in violation of the antitrust laws had to do with their dealings with the Authority in the exercise of a governmental function. . . . 362 F.2d at 56 .”
    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.