Apple, Inc. v. Pepper’s Empirical Analysis
587 U.S. 273 · 2019
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our decision in Illinois Brick established a bright-line rule that authorizes suits by direct purchasers but bars suits by indirect purchasers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]ndirect purchasers who are two or more steps removed from the violator in a distribution chain may not sue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations ....”
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.