In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
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. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 6A (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India · F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S. A.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cause of the plaintiffs' injuries, so the requirements of the FTAIA exception were not met and the Sherman Act was therefore inapplicable. The Eighth Circuit recently joined the D.C. Circuit in interpreting the FTAIA's domestic injury exception to require proximate cause. See In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig., 477 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir.2007). We have not had occasion since Empagran I to illuminate the standard that applies in determining whether a domestic effect”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, amending the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7 . [1] Defendants-appellees are U.S. and foreign manufacturers and sellers of DRAM, a type of high-density memory used in personal computers and other electronic devices. We affirm. I. Background Centerprise is a British corporation that uses DRAM in the manufacture of its computers. DRAM is a common type of memory chip that is sold around the world. According to Centerprise, DRAM is”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is a legal cause. What turns cause in fact into a legal cause is a value judgment that the cause in fact creates an unacceptable risk of injury to a protected interest. What is an unacceptable risk and what is to be protected depend on the values of the society. As Cardozo's famous opinion in Palsgraf makes clear, that is how causation is often considered in the law of negligence. Antitrust law, apparently, still offers”
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.