627 F. Supp. 2d 1342 - Appleton v. Intergraph Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 5 U.S.C. § 1221
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Bonner v. City of Prichard · United States v. Mitchell · McNeil v. United States
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is not sufficient that the facts in the complaint be consistent with a meeting of the minds; the plaintiff must instead plead facts that go beyond this to suggest that there actually was an agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts set out in the Complaint also fall short of stating a claim for relief under § 2 because Intergraph's conduct only harms Plaintiff, and not competition in general.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the anticompetitive effect of the defendant's conduct on the relevant market, and (2) that the defendant's conduct has no pro-competitive benefit or justification.”
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.