Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
663 F.2d 930 · 1981
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing Co. (1984), Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck (1990)
24 federal appellate · 9 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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. · American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp. · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Copp Paving Company Inc · Engle v. Isaac
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are not to resolve splits between circuits no matter how egregiously in error they may feel their own circuit to be”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'clearly appear[ ] that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separate from the others that a trial of it alone may be without injustice'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The first issue involves the appellee’s claim of implied antitrust immunity for its pricing policies during the period of federal mandatory gasoline price ceilings. The trial court correctly rendered partial summary judgment against this claim. See Oahu Gas Service, Inc. v. Pacific Resources, Inc., 460 F.Supp. 1359 (D. Hawaii 1978); Inter City Oil Corp. v. Murphy Oil Corp., [1976]-1 Trade Cases (CCH) ¶ 60,-948 (D.Minn.1976); but see Evanson v. Union Oil Co., 4 En.Mngm’t (CCH) ¶ 26,-158 (D.Minn.1979).”
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.