In Re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution M.D.L. No. 31. State of California v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Robert Morgan v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of Philadelphia v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., State of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City of New York v. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., City and County of Denver v. American Motors Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 33 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 251 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready (1982), California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (1979)
123 federal appellate · 33 district · 5 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) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Bell v. Hood · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Massachusetts v. Mellon
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 251 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor . . . and shall recover threefold damages by him sustained.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[C]ourts have impressed a standing doctrine so as to confine the availability of section 4 relief only to those individuals whose protection is the fundamental purpose of the antitrust laws. Cf. Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 [ 90 S.Ct. 832 , 25 L.Ed.2d 192 ] (1970); Association of Data Processing v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 [ 90 S.Ct. 827 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 ] (1970); Mount Clemens Industries, Inc. v. Bell, 464 F.2d 339, 341-344 (9th Cir. 1972). Unfortunately, no “bright line” has yet emerged to divine this group, and courts have formulated varied definitions. [In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 481 F.2d 122, 125 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1045 , [ 94 S.Ct. 551 , 38 L.Ed.2d 336 ] (1973), reh. denied, 414 U.S. 1148 , 94 S.Ct. 905 , 39 L.Ed.2d 104 (1974).]”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ny person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief ... against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws.”
9 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.