Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 435 F.2d 1168 - Harrison v. Prather

Harrison v. Prather’s Empirical Analysis

435 F.2d 1168 · 1970

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Kestenbaum v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (1975), E. A. McQuade Tours, Inc. v. Consolidated Air Tour Manual Committee (1972)

11 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

17019701980199020002010decided

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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1655

Relies on Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Sweet v. United States · Radiant Burners, Inc. v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. · Hunt v. Crumboch

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “... that it is appropriate to show future loss of profit by introduction of evidence from past profits. Further, while the measure damages need not be perfect, the most accurate and reliable evidence available should be required.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the proposition that recovery is possible if an individual proves purely personal damages, does not establish the necessary element of restraint of commerce. Harrison's authorities consist entirely of per se violation cases or cases involving activities which by their nature and character had a monopolistic tendency.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The antitrust laws were never meant as a panacea for all wrongs.”
    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.