Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
4 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc. (1982), First Ins. Co. of Hawaii v. State (1983)
4 district · 63 state decisions
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)
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Palmer v. Chamberlin · Abraham v. S. E. Onorato Garages · Bradford v. New York Times Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“66.. . the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts alleged in the materials (such as depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits) considered by the court in making its determination must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. [Citations omitted.] Further, in considering the validity of the granting of summary judgment under H.R.C.P. Rule 56(c), the appellate court must determine whether any genuine issue as to a material fact was raised and, if not raised, whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” [Citation omitted.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Silver v. George · Gealon v. Keala“Without limiting the generality of the foregoing no person, exclusive of members of a single business entity consisting of a sole proprietorship, partnership, trust, or corporation, shall agree, combine, or conspire with any other person or persons, or enter into, become a member of, or participate in, any understanding, arrangement, pool, or trust, to do, directly or indirectly, any of the following acts, in the State or any section of the State: (1) Fix, control, or maintain, the price of any commodity; (2) Limit, control, or discontinue, the production, manufacture, or sale of any commodity for the purpose or with the result of fixing, controlling or maintaining its price; (3) Fix, control, or maintain, any standard of quality of any commodity for the purpose or with the result of fixing, controlling, or maintaining its price; (4) Refuse to deal with any other person or persons for the purpose of effecting any of the acts described in (1) to (3) of this subsection.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjithout limiting the application of the foregoing subsection (a) it shall be lawful for a person to enter into any of the following restrictive covenants or agreements ancillary to a legitimate purpose not viola-tive of this chapter, unless the effect thereof may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce in any section of the State... (4) A covenant or agreement by an employee or agent not to use the trade secrets of the employer or principal in competition with the employee’s or agent’s employer or principal ... after the termination of employment, within such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal, without imposing undue hardship on the employee or agent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Uarco Inc. v. Lam
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.