Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 1147 - United States v. David E. Thompson, Inc.

United States v. David E. Thompson, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 1147 · 1980

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
September 2015
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably United States v. Figueroa (1987), United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corporation and R. Curtis Saunders, Jr. (1983)

16 federal appellate · 3 district ·

1901980199020002010decided

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. § 16 (§ 5 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 3 (§ 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)

Relies on Glasser v. United States · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · United States v. Bailey · New York Shipping Ass'n v. Federal Maritime Commission · United States v. Petrozziello

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

  1. “[i]n the absence of a proper objection, Fed.R.Evid. 103(a)(1), a deviation from the standard announced in Petrozziello will be reversed only upon a showing of plain error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““. .. The fact is, however, that the clearly foreseeable, and thus intended, effect of the conspiracy was to circumvent competitive bidding and obtain contracts at amounts well in excess of the amounts which would have prevailed had the conspiracy not existed.” Id. at 1151, n. 5 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(I)f it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy when the hearsay statement was made, and that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy, the hearsay is admissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.