Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co.’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.2d 629 · 1966
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America (1971), Terrell v. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau (1974)
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 4 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 Chandler v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. · Waldron v. British Petroleum Co. · North Texas Producers Ass'n v. Young · Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. National Electric Products 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Some of the elements considered by the courts include the ability of plaintiff to finance the business and to purchase the necessary facilities and equipment, Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., Ltd., [ 231 F.Supp. 72 ] supra; the consummation of contracts by the plaintiff, North Texas Producers Association v. Young, supra; affirmative action by plaintiff to enter the business. Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 2 Cir.1908, 166 F. 254 ; Washington Professional Basketball Corporation, Inc. v. National Basketball Association, S.D. N.Y., 1956, 147 F.Supp. 154 ; and the background and experience of plaintiff in the prospective business, Peller v. International Boxing Club, Inc., 7 Cir.1955, 227 F.2d 593 , Rossman v. Pullman Co., S.D. N.Y., 1936, 15 F.Supp. 325 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the ability of plaintiff to finance the business and to purchase the necessary facilities and equipment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Addressing the second contention first, we readily conclude that one who has been damaged by loss of employment as a result of a violation of the antitrust laws is “injured in his business or property” and thus entitled to recovery under 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 . Work as the employee of another is not, indeed, an independent business enterprise, and an opportunity to perform such work may not be property in the ordinary sense, but the interest invaded by a wrongful act resulting in loss of employment is so closely akin to the interest invaded by impairment of one’s business as to be indistinguishable in this context. (Footnotes omitted).”
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.