Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation v. Plc’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2025
8 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 Conley v. Gibson · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] private plaintiff must demonstrate that he has suffered an `antitrust injury' as a result of the alleged conduct of defendant[], and that he has standing to pursue a claim under the federal antitrust laws.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“injury of the type that antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That Congress created a special procedure for authorizing importation of prescription drugs from Canada supports our conclusion that the preexisting system established by the [FDCA] does not permit such importation. While it is true that no federal statute by its express terms bans importation of prescription drugs from Canada, such an explicit country-by-country prohibition is unnecessary to accomplish the task. By creating the comprehensive regulatory system described above, Congress has effectively precluded importation of these drugs absent the sort of special authorization contemplated by 21 U.S.C. § 384 . 8”
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.