In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 18 (§ 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 4 (§ 4 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 291 (Capper-Volstead Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“launched a “supply control” campaign by using membership funds [from EMMC] collected during 2001 and 2002 to acquire and subsequently dismantle nonEMMC mushroom growing operations in order to support and maintain artificial price increases. [The Purchasers] allege that the EMMC repeatedly would purchase a mushroom farm or a parcel of farmland and then sell or exchange that farm or parcel at a loss, attaching a permanent or long-term deed restriction to the land prohibiting the conduct of any business related to the growing of mushrooms.... [The Purchasers] further allege that [the Growers] collectively interfered with non-EMMC growers that sought to sell at prices below those set by the EMMC and pressured independent growers to join the EMMC. The pressure and coercion tactics alleged include threatening and/or implementing a group boycott in which EMMC members would not sell mushrooms to assist independent growers in satisfying their short-term supply needs and/or selling mushrooms to independent growers at inflated prices.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although plaintiffs may establish entitlement to summary judgment in their favor by demonstrating defendants’ inability to establish any one of the three bases outlined by the Court[: (1) inclusion of a non-grower member in the EMMC; (2) agreement with persons or entities not engaged in agricultural production; or (3) anticompetitive and predatory practices that fall outside the legitimate object of an agricultural cooperative,] defendants must establish as a matter of undisputed fact that none of the three is true.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he lack of unity of interest [between growers and distributors] is particularly evident with [the] affiliation [between Kaolin and the South Mill distribution centers] as a lawsuit ensued between Kaolin/South Mill and a distribution center. It is hard to imagine how interests could have been congruent and control exercised to constitute ‘one consciousness’ when litigation occurred between the entities.”
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.