Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 576 F.2d 230 - Subscription Television, Inc. v. Southern California Theatre Owners Ass'n

Subscription Television, Inc. v. Southern California Theatre Owners Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis

576 F.2d 230 · 1978

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California (2000), Forro Precision, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (1982)

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

200197819801990200020102020decided

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 Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · Thompson v. United States

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “require an advocate to predict whether the desired legislation would withstand a ... challenge in the courts and to expose itself to a potential treble damage antitrust action based on that prediction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[T]he trial court must state its reasons for the denial of costs so that the appellate court will be able to determine whether or not the trial court abused its discretion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor”
    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.