In Re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 602 F. Supp. 2d 538 - In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation (2009), 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 - In Re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation (2008)
2 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“until Plaintiffs indicate which States' laws support their claim, the Court cannot assess whether the claim has been adequately [pled]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs have further supported those allegations with evidence of communications between Defendant companies,” including”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the same actors associated with certain Defendants were responsible for marketing both SRAM and DRAM”
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.