Pollock & Riley, Inc. v. Pearl Brewing Company, W. H. Wood v. Gulf Oil Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.2d 1240 · 1974
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably 175 Cal. App. 3d 1 - California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Insurance Co. (1985), Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985)
32 federal appellate · 1 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Babich v. United States · Smith v. Crouse · Mahan v. Howell · Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co. · Hall v. Cole
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . we hold that the jury should not be advised of the mandatory tripling provision of 15 U.S.C.A. § 15. The primary policy supporting our decision is that underpinning the tripling provision itself. The purpose of treble damage is to deter violations and encourage private enforcement of the anti-trust laws. The justifiable fear of anti-trust plaintiffs is that the juries will adjust the damage award downward or find no liability, therefore thwarting Congress's purpose, because of some notions of a windfall to the plaintiff. One court has even suggested that a jury might take the revelation of the treble damage provision as an intimation from the court to restrict the amount of damages. In sum, we agree with the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that informing a jury would serve no useful function and its probable consequence would be harmful an impermissible lowering of the amount of damages. "Second, it is not for the jury to determine the amount of a judgment. Its function is to compute the amount of damages. Congress's authorization in 15 U.S.C.A. § 15 to triple the award of damages is a matter of law to be applied by the district court without interference from the jury. The fact that the awarded amount will be tripled has no relevance in determining the amount a plaintiff was injured by the anti-trust violation.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brooks v. Cook · Rhue v. Dawson“does not require a plaintiff to retain possession of a business oppressed by anti-trust violation until the business is bankrupted or directly shut down by the violator.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our immediate reaction is that a district court can sufficiently instruct the jury to determine only actual damages. In those cases where an accidental revelation occurs, the court can give curative instructions to alleviate confusion.”
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.