496 F. Supp. 2d 404 - In Re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Lit.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve disputed facts or decide the merits of the case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Burdell , the California Supreme Court found that a restrictive covenant in a lease that was intended to create a monopoly was void, but it did not address the availability of damages for a monopoly claim. Similarly, in Exxon, the court concluded that the plaintiffs monopoly claim could not survive summary judgment, but did not actually address whether such a claim was cognizable under California law because no such challenge was made to the claim.”
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.