In re Copper Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
436 F.3d 782 · 2006
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. (2007), Jay E. Hayden Foundation v. First Neighbor Bank, N.A. (2010)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 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
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. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Hanna v. Plumer · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“within four years after the cause of action accrued.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The majority opinion unnecessarily, and I believe unwisely, broadens American Pipe. Unlike the setting in American Pipe, the filing of the state action in our case did not notify defendants of the “substantive claims being brought against them” in the district court. Although both actions were based on the same set of facts, the claims themselves asserted separate and distinct grounds for recovery. The [first action] was based on a state law theory of recovery seeking compensatory damages [while the subsequent actions] sought treble damages based on specific federal statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Fraudulent concealment presupposes that the plaintiff has discovered, or, as required by the discovery rule, should have discovered, that the defendant injured him, and denotes efforts by the defendant-above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiff's claim is founded-to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time. In order for a plaintiff to benefit from tolling for fraudulent concealment, he must show that he neither knew nor, in the exercise of due diligence, could reasonably have known of the offense.”
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.