Robinson v. Magovern’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Potters Medical Center v. City Hospital Ass'n (1986), 58 N.C. App. 414 - Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1982)
8 federal appellate · 5 district · 7 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Rideout v. United States
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To define a market in product and geographic terms is to say that if prices were appreciably raised or volume appreciably curtailed for the product within a given area while demand held constant, supply from other sources could not be expected to enter promptly enough and in large enough amounts to restore the old price or volume. If sufficient supply would promptly enter from other geographic areas, then the “defined market” is not wide enough in geographic terms; if sufficient supply would promptly enter in the form of products made by other producers which had not been included in the product market as defined, then the market would not be wide enough in defined product terms. A “relevant market,” then, is the narrowest market which is wide enough so that products from adjacent areas or from other producers in the same area cannot compete on substantial parity with those included in the market.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States .... ” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not impose an unreasonable restraint on trade.”
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.