Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 508 F.3d 170 - GO Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

GO Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

508 F.3d 170 · 2007

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Goode v. Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, Inc. (2015), McLean v. United States (2009)

10 federal appellate · 5 district ·

260200720102020decided

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. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al. · Domino Sugar Corporation v. Sugar Workers Local Union of United Food and Commercial Workers International Union · Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]nquiry notice ... charges a person to investigate when the information at hand would have prompted a reasonable person to do so.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]here a plaintiff knows of a pattern of particular actions that a defendant has taken against him, though the pattern's precise scope might be unclear and its exact legal ramifications uncertain, the plaintiff is on inquiry notice of his claim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]othing in [our precedent] excuses a negligent plaintiff from the diligence requirement[.]”
    2 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.