Ware v. Trailer Mart, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
623 F.2d 1150 · 1980
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Smith v. Freland (1992), U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Industries, Inc. (1993)
14 federal appellate · 2 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
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)
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Reiter v. Sonotone 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Captain Ware has alleged a wrongful deprivation of money by having to pay double rent for the apartment and mobile home rental space. He incurred this loss because of Trailer Mart’s anticompetitive conduct in tying homesite leases to trailer purchases. We therefore find Ware has properly claimed an injury under Section 4 and may, accordingly, sue to recover damages for the alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A court is not confined to the particular propositions of law advanced by the parties on a motion for summary judgment. Once it is determined that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a party is entitled to the benefit of a judgment as a matter of law, judgment should be entered even though the legal principles relied upon by the court may differ from those that have been urged by the litigants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Freland“trial court neither exercised caution nor notified the parties of its intention to base summary judgment”
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.