Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Professional Publications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.3d 1540 · 1995
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 1997-1 v. Dar Forsyth, Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc. (2002)
25 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 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. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unfortunately for litigants, neither the Supreme Court nor we have taken a position on which of various cost measures is the definitive one, although we have spoken of marginal and average variable costs as being relevant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would qualify as anticompetitive conduct”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,818, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3865, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6578 Mary Forsyth Marrietta Cade Willie Andrews Mary Lou Buehler Helen Staves Randolph Bratten and Searle Auto Glass, Inc., D/B/A Best Glass Company v. Humana, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation and Does I Through X, Inclusive · 1997-1 v. Dar Forsyth““To establish the dangerous probability of success element of an attempted monopolization claim, ‘the plaintiff must show that there was a dangerous probability the defendant would achieve monopoly status as the result of the predatory conduct alleged by the plaintiff.’” Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 894 (10th Cir.1991) (iquoting Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 885 F.2d 683, 693 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 972 , 111 S.Ct. 441 , 112 L.Ed.2d 424 (1990)). Factors relevant to determining dangerous probability include, but are not limited to, a defendant’s market share, whether the defendant is a multimarket firm, the number and strength of other competitors, market trends, and entry barriers. See id.; Shoppin’ Bag of Pueblo, Inc. v. Dillon Cos., 783 F.2d 159, 162 (10th Cir.1986). Where predatory pricing is alleged, the defendants’ financial strength and ability to absorb losses are also relevant. See Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 225 , 113 S.Ct. at 2589 ; Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 , 119 n. 15, 107 S.Ct. 484 , 494 n. 15, 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986). Because we are talking about probabilities, it is not necessary for a defendant to already possess monopoly power in the target market; indeed, if it did, the offense would be monopolization, not attempt. Of course, “[t]he higher the firm’s initial market share, the greater the likelihood that it will eventually gain monopolistic control ov”
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.