Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 536 F. Supp. 2d 1129 - In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram) Antitrust Litigation

536 F. Supp. 2d 1129 - In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (Dram) Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
November 2018
most recently cited

4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Atlantic Richfield Company v. Usa Petroleum Company · Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To satisfy the consumer-oriented prong, plaintiffs need only allege consumer-oriented conduct that implicates the public interest in New York.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “offend[s] public policy as has been established by statute and/or common law”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”
    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.