Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 F.2d 404 - Com-Tel, Inc. v. DuKane Corp.

Com-Tel, Inc. v. DuKane Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

669 F.2d 404 · 1982

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Nynex Corporations v. Discon Incorporated (1998), Discon Incorporated v. Nynex Corporation J (1996)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

3701982199020002010decided

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

Relies on Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · United States v. Topco Associates, 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “reinstated the rule of reason for vertical distribution restraints”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]his is not a case of a single trader refusing to deal with another, nor even of a manufacturer and a dealer agreeing to an exclusive distributorship. Alleged in this complaint is a wide combination consisting of manufacturers, distributors, and a retailer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the ultimate effect of the successful coercion was a horizontal combination of [three separate DuKane distributors], all refusing to sell to Com-Tel because of their concerted actions.”
    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.