Hartford Fire Insurance Co v. California Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Limited’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
408 federal appellate · 144 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,180 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Zandford (2002)
408 federal appellate · 144 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1011 (§ 1 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1013 (§ 3 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 6A (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.
Cited together with Conley v. Gibson · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. · Hilton v. Guyot · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Scheuer v. Rhodes
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 1,180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is well established by now that the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact produce some substantial effect in the United States.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Possible Violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 50 U.S.C. § 1705 · Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited
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.