Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 FSUPP2D 1003 - In Re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

In Re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2023

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

40200820102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “any presumption against the granting of summary judgment in complex antitrust cases has now disappeared”
    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.