American Motor Inns, Inc. v. Holiday Inns, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
521 F.2d 1230 · 1975
Citation profile
71 federal appellate · 18 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2016 · most notably Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977), Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (1979)
71 federal appellate · 18 district · 5 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Morrissey v. Brewer · Goldberg v. Kelly · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Armstrong v. Manzo · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is necessary to weigh the probable effect of the contract on the relevant area of effective competition, taking into account the relative strength of the parties, the proportionate volume of commerce involved in relation to the total volume of commerce in the relevant market area, and the probable immediate and future effects which pre-emption of that share of the market might have on effective competition therein.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he test is not whether the defendant deployed the least restrictive alternative. Rather the issue is whether the restriction actually implemented is ‘fairly necessary’ in the circumstances of the particular case, or whether the restriction ‘exceeds the outer limits of restraint reasonably necessary to protect the defendant.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[where] the circumstances are such as to warrant [the trier of fact] in finding that the [alleged] conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement, the conclusion that a conspiracy is established is justified.”
3 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.