Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 669 F.2d 490 - Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Sealy, Inc.

Ohio-Sealy Mattress Manufacturing Co. v. Sealy, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

669 F.2d 490 · 1982

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Spray-Rite Services Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (1982), Sealy Incorporated v. Easy Living Inc (1984)

21 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

27019821990200020102020decided

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 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · International Salt Co. v. United States · Teamsters Local Union 657 v. Rodriguez · Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co.

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

  1. “In the context of a continuing scheme to violate the antitrust laws, a cause of action accrues to the plaintiff each time the defendant engages in antitrust conduct that harms the plaintiff.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “only to the extent necessary to protect it from future damage likely to occur if the defendant continues the unlawful antitrust conduct.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for and have injunctive relief, in any court of the United States having jurisdiction over the parties, against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws, including [§ 7 of the Clayton Act], when and under the same conditions and principles as injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damage is granted by courts of equity____”
    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.