Grumman Corp. v. LTV Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2017
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 33 U.S.C. § 1415 · 33 U.S.C. § 1515 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 300J
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Caminetti v. United States · Maher v. Gagne · City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, Manhattan-Ward, Incorporated v. Grinnell Corporation, 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation · Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“antitrust case). Additionally, in its original complaint and application for a TRO, Royal Crown submitted extensive memorandum, affidavits and exhibits that support a finding that the appellants' proposed acquisitions would have had anticompetitive effects on the soft drink industry in violation of the antitrust laws. (See R1-3-Ex.; R1-1-Exs). While the evidence is certainly inconclusive, we believe that as long as it otherwise establishes that it substantially prevailed, Royal Crown has shown that its lawsuit furthered”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is more appropriate to presume that Congress intended [that] identical language found within the Section 16 and Section 1988 attorney's fees provisions, which were enacte by the same Congress, would be identically construed .... This conclusion is corroborated by the negative inference which we draw from an examination of a host of statutes where Congress has expressly imposed the requirement of a final judgment as a condition precedent for plaintiff's recovery of attorney's fees.”
1 later decision 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.