Lewis v. Pennington’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.2d 806 · 1968
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Farrar v. Hobby (1992), Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America (1971)
48 federal appellate · 2 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · American Tobacco Co. v. United States
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon careful consideration, the Court has reached the conclusion that the Pennington case teaches that it is necessary to find predatory intent to drive small coal operators out of business in order to hold the employer and Union for a violation of the Sherman Act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Association, Inc., Sea-Land Services, Inc., Seatrain Lines Inc., International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., John M. McGrath Corp., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., United Terminals Corp., Universal Maritime Services Corp. Twin Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Association, Inc., Sea-Land Service, Inc., International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., John M. McGrath Corp., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., United Terminals Corp., Universal Maritime Services Corp · Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Ass'n““(1) that the federal claim have ‘substance’ so as to confer jurisdiction of the subject matter on the court in which the action is commenced and (2) that the ‘state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a conspiracy between employers and labor formed with the intention of driving competitors out of business ....”
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.