Gka Beverage Corp’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 914 F. Supp. 964 - Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc. (1995), 19 F. Supp. 2d 157 - PICCOLI A/S v. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co. (1998)
3 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
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Murphy v. Sullivan · International Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distributors attempt to recharacterize their antitrust claims by arguing that they suffered antitrust injury in the elimination of competition in retail distribution between themselves and Honickman. However, the so-called “distribution monopoly” is derived entirely from Honickman’s share of the bottling market. Honickman’s “distribution monopoly” thus involves only his product. Moreover, a vertically structured monopoly can take only one monopoly profit. See Lamoille Valley R.R. v. ICC, 711 F.2d 295 , 318 (D.C.Cir.1983); see also Robert H. Bark, The Antitrust Paradox 229 (2d ed. 1993); 3 Philip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law 21 725b (1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe that the distributors do ’ not have standing to bring an antitrust claim against defendants because the distributors have not alleged an antitrust injury ... It follows naturally that a party in a business relationship with an entity that failed as a result of an antitrust violation has not suffered the antitrust injury necessary for antitrust standing ... Although the distributors undoubtedly suffered injury as a result of the alleged antitrust violation, the injury suffered by the distributors is derivative of the injury suffered by Seven Up Brooklyn [the bottler].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The distributors contend that appellees interfered with their relationships with retailers and other final purchasers of soft drinks_ The distributors ... make no allegations that appellees had any contact with the distributors’ customers or that appellees tried to convince the customers to make contracts with them rather than the distributors. It is axiomatic that, in order to prevail on this claim, the distributors would have to show that the appel-lees intentionally caused the retailers not to enter into a contractual relation with them.”
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.