In Re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation State of California v. Standard Oil Company of California’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.2d 1335 · 1982
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Bender v. Southland Corp. (1984), Link v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1986)
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15C · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question whether Murray's injury should be legally attributable to the defendants depends in some measure on whether and how accurately Murray's alleged injury is economically traceable to the defendants. That issue in turn parallels the pass-on issue raised in Illinois Brick because in both situations the plaintiff seeks to recover for higher prices set by, and paid by it to, parties other than the defendants. And the rationale underlying Illinois Brick that it would be almost impossible, and at the very least unwieldy, to attempt to trace the incidence of the anticompetitive effect of defendants' conductbears even greater truth in the context of a purchaser from a competitor of the defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs contend that defendants' successful price-fixing conspiracy created a "price umbrella" under which non-conspiring competitors of the defendants raised their gasoline prices to an artificial level at or near the fixed price. Since defendants are allegedly responsible for creating a market situation where conduct of this nature is possible, plaintiffs argue that defendants should be held responsible for damages resulting from their competitors' higher prices.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Absent joinder of retail dealers, serious risks of duplicative recovery and inconsistent adjudications would ensue. In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, supra, 600 F.2d at 1148 . If plaintiffs recovered damages for a vertical conspiracy between defendants and non-party retail dealers, any of those dealers could prove in a subsequent action that they were not conspirators and, as direct purchasers, were entitled to damages arising out of the same events. In Illinois Brick, the Court expressly found unacceptable the risk of duplicative recovery created by allowing direct and indirect purchasers to claim damages resulting from a single transaction that violated the antitrust laws. 431 U.S. at 730-31 , 97 S.Ct. at 2066-67 . [Blue Shield of Va. v.] McCready, [457] U.S. [465] at [474], 102 S.Ct. [2540] at 2546 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 149 ].”
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.