Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 658 F.2d 720 - Dreisbach v. Murphy

Dreisbach v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2019

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

1401981199020002010decided

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. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · United States v. Western Pacific Railroad · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Scalza v. United States · Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.

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

  1. “the plain language of the section 15 agreements on the present record encompasses carriers’ agreement to use Murphy as their one devanner in Los Angeles, and that agreement is not directly contested by appellant Dreisbach____” Id. at 724. 14 . The Ninth Circuit noted that plaintiff Dreisbach’s allegations were not”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is no evidence, and no allegation, that the Carriers here are the only carriers requiring a devanning service in Los Angeles, or that Dreisbach was impeded in any manner from seeking to render devanning services in Los Angeles to other carriers.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.