Cardizem Cd Antitrust Litigation v. Aktiengesellschaft’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2021
1 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Marek v. Chesny · Lindsey v. Normet · Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n · Adsani v. Miller
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ll consumers and Third Party Payers . . . who purchased and/or paid all or part of the purchase price of Cardizem CD Products”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he court may require the person instituting the [meritless] action to indemnify the defendant ....”
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.