In re Master Key Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably In re Nasdaq Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation (1996), Response of Carolina, Inc., Florida Computer Response, Inc., Datatron Corporation, Response of Colorado, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., Leasco Response, Inc. v. John Wright (1976)
6 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co. · Linkletter v. Walker · Martin v. Davis · Terrell v. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plaintiffs’ claims all go to group conduct by the defendants. It is true, as the defendants urge, that there may be local variations in marketing practices and the like. It is also true that in order for all the plaintiffs to recover it must be shown that the effects of the defendants’ alleged anti-competitive behavior extended to all the areas in which plaintiffs made master key purchases. But these facts do not change the central and common element of these cases — the question whether the defendants acted in concert to decrease competition among them. If this element is shown, differences in the way the plan was manifested around the country are unimportant, except perhaps as they may affect the amounts of recovery different plaintiffs may obtain. Nor does this last qualification militate against class certification; in few class actions is there a simple per capita measure of recovery. Here the differences may be due to different conduct of buyers and sellers (as opposed, perhaps, to differences only among buyers in some other class actions). But the differences in damage recoveries may be handled by splitting the trial into liability and damage components, as discussed infra. And the proper inquiry in certifying a class for purposes of trying liability is simply whether common issues predominate as to the liability issue. See Ungar v. Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc., 68 F.R.D. 65 (E.D.Pa.1975) and cases cited therein. As to this inquiry, I hold that the common issue”
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.