Dailey v. Quality School Plan, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
380 F.2d 484 · 1967
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. (1972), In Re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution M.D.L. No. 31. State of California v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Robert Morgan v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of Philadelphia v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., State of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City and County of Denver v. American Motors Corporation (1973)
68 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Radovich v. National Football League · Leh v. General Petroleum Corp. · Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co. · Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We see no escape from the logic that § 7 of the Clayton Act is an antitrust statute within the scope and meaning of § 4 of the Act and so hold.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he loss of employment by a sales supervisor is injury to business or property within the meaning of § 4. [citations] These commission sales agent cases where a territory has been developed and where the courts treat the relationship as the business of the salesman or sales manager are to be distinguished from those cases where the business or property is that of the corporation and the claim asserted by stockholders or creditors or employees is derivative, [citations]”
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.