In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
552 F.3d 305 · 2009
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 66 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem (2012), Marcus v. BMW of North America, LLC (2012)
56 federal appellate · 66 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
93 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he court must resolve all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits-including disputes touching on elements of the cause of action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Chiang v. Veneman, 385 F.3d 256 , 262 (3d Cir.2004), decided after Newton and Johnston, cited Eisen for the proposition that “in determining whether a class will be certified, the substantive allegations of the complaint must be taken as true.” No supporting analysis of Rule 23 jurisprudence accompanied this statement, which contradicts and conflicts with Newton, Johnston, and Szabo (which we relied upon in Newton). “To the extent that the decision of a later panel conflicts with existing circuit precedent, we are bound by the earlier, not the later, decision.” United States v. Monaco, 23 F.3d 793 , 803 (3d Cir.1994).”
2 later decisions 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.