Comes v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions

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

1. “This chapter shall be construed to complement and be harmonized with the applied laws of the United States which have the same or similar purpose as this chapter. This construction shall not be made in such a way as to constitute a delegation of state authority to the federal government, but shall be made to achieve uniform application of the state and federal laws prohibiting restraints of economic activity and monopolistic practices.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bradley A. Chicoine, Dr. Bradley A. Chicoine, D.C., P.C., Mark A. Niles, Niles Chiropractic, Inc., Rod R. Rebarcak, and Ben Winecoff, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross A · Arthur v. Microsoft Corp.

2. “The legislature did not specifically limit standing to direct purchasers, but instead it simply authorized “[a] person who is .injured” to sue.... Given the clear, broad language of the state antitrust law, we conclude the Iowa Competition Law creates a cause of action for all consumers, regardless of one’s technical status as a direct or indirect purchaser.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hawkeye Land Company v. Iowa Utilities Board