Ungar v. Dunkin' Donuts of America, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.2d 1211 · 1976
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 21 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1977), Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co. (1977)
52 federal appellate · 21 district · 8 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
Relies on Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute · Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts 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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . First, he must establish that the conduct in question was a tie-in: ‘an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product.’ Northern Pacific Ry. v. United States, supra, 356 U.S. [1] at 5, 78 S.Ct. [514,] at 518, 2 L.Ed.2d [545] at 550. Second, he must establish that the seller ‘has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.’ Ibid, at 6 [ 78 S.Ct. 514 .] And third, he must establish that ‘a “not insubstantial” amount of interstate commerce is affected.’ Ibid.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(o)f course where the buyer is free to take either product by itself there is no tying problem ....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.