Scranton Construction Co. v. Litton Industries Leasing Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
494 F.2d 778 · 1974
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp. (1980), Pharo v. Smith (1980)
34 federal appellate · 4 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Albrecht v. Herald Co. · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
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.
“a panacea for all business affronts which seem to fit nowhere else.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have searched the record in vain for evidence supporting plaintiffs’ allegations of a combination or conspiracy against them between Litton and anyone in the area of plaintiffs’ claims. Proof of this is, of course, essential to plaintiffs’ case under § 1 of the Sher man Act and to its conspiracy claims under § 2. Facing defendants’ sworn challenge to the existence of such a conspiracy, it was up to plaintiffs to produce significant probative evidence —by affidavit or deposition — demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact existed as to this element of the complaint, if summary judgment was to be avoided, (citations omitted, emphasis added). Similarly, a review of the record in this case reveals a total lack of any significant probative evidence, by 'means of sworn affidavits or depositions, supportive of appellant’s contention that genuine issues of material fact exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have searched the record in vain for evidence supporting plaintiffs’ allegations of a combination or conspiracy against them between Litton and anyone in the area of plaintiffs’ claims. Proof of this is, of course, essential to plaintiffs’ case under § 1 of the Sherman Act and to its conspiracy claims under § 2. Facing defendants’ sworn challenge to the existence of such a conspiracy, it was up to plaintiffs to produce significant probative evidence —by affidavit or deposition — demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact existed as to this element of the complaint, if summary judgment was to be avoided, (citations omitted, emphasis added).”
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.