Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
4 F.3d 1153 · 1993
Citation profile
201 federal appellate · 106 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 585 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Weisgram v. Marley Co. (2000), Barbara Sheridan v. Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Jacques Amblard (1996)
201 federal appellate · 106 district · 16 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Carnegie v. United States · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman
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 585 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party.”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“9. That PaineWebber Incorporated, did violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (c), in that it em ployed or associated itself with an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce to conduct the Enterprise's affairs through a pattern of Racketeering Activity in that: (a) PaineWebber Incorporated had a shared purpose of gaining funds from the investing public itself and through its various affiliates, as set forth in various subsections herein, including the one dealing with Enterprise. (b) PaineWebber Incorporated had a continuity as a unit, in that the structure of PaineWebber Equity Partners I — Limited Partnership is the same or extremely similar to the structure of PaineWebber Equity Partners II— Limited Partnership and is the same or extremely similar to the structure of PaineWebber Equity Partners III — Limited Partnership, the latter two (2) being follow-on programs to PaineWebber Equity Partners I— Limited Partnership. ‡ ¡Ü s}: sj¡ * *”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person who has received any income derived ... from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in ... interstate commerce.”
5 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.