TRW, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission’s Empirical Analysis
647 F.2d 942 · 1981
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. (1989), Halet ex rel. Halet v. Wend Investment Co. (1982)
57 federal appellate · 5 district · 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. § 19 (§ 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 21 (§ 11 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission · County of Los Angeles v. Davis
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the party to be estopped must know the facts. Second, this party must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended. Third, the party asserting estoppel must have been ignorant of the facts. Finally, the party asserting estoppel must reasonably rely on the other’s conduct to his substantial injury.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In addition, the Ninth Circuit noted that ‘the government action upon which estoppel is to be based, must amount to affirmative misconduct’ which the court defined as ‘something more than mere negligence.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t must be 'absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'”
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.