Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 F.2d 5 - In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation

In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

528 F.2d 5 · 1975

Citation profile

139
cited by 139 later decisions
4
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1983), Visa Check/mastermoney Antitrust Litigation v. Usa

57 federal appellate · 22 district · 4 state decisions

47019751980199020002010decided

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. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar · Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Gillespie v. United States 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If the appellees establish at the trial for liability that the defendants engaged in an unlawful national conspiracy which had the effect of stabilizing prices above competitive levels, and further establish that the appellees were consumers of that product, we would think that the jury could reasonably conclude that appellants’ conduct caused injury to each appellee. The amount of such injury could then be computed at a separate trial for damages . . . .” (citations omitted) 528 F.2d at 12 n.ll.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the question of what must be proven to establish liability is not a matter separable from the claim for relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “which can properly be before us as a collateral issue for interlocutory appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.