Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Steering Committee v. Mead Corporation Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Mead Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
614 F.2d 958 · 1980
Citation profile
70 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), United States v. Heldt (1981)
70 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · United States v. Nixon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · United States v. Grinnell Corp.
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“disqualification questions are fully reviewable on appeal after final judgment,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n assessing the reasonableness of a challenge to [a judge’s] impartiality, each judge must be alert to avoid the possibility that those who would question his impartiality are in fact seeking to avoid the consequences of his expected adverse decision. Disqualification for lack of impartiality must have a reasonable basis. Nothing in this proposed legislation should be read to warrant the transformation of a litigant’s fear that a judge may decide a question against him into a “reasonable fear” that the judge will not be impartial. Litigants ought not to have to face a judge where there is a reasonable question of impartiality, but they are not entitled to judges of their own choice.”
2 later decisions 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.