Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2025
12 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc. · Wimberly v. Ettenberg · In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“can properly be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“All contracts or agreements made by any person while a member of any combination, conspiracy, trust, or pool prohibited under this article which are founded upon, or are the result of, or grow out of, or are connected with any violation of this article, either directly or indirectly, shall be void, and no recovery thereon or benefit therefrom shall be had by or for any such person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all its parts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.