Mesirow v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
703 F.2d 339 · 1983
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Tsafaroff v. Taylor (1989), Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman (1985)
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914)
Relies on Simpson v. United Oil Company of California · United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc. · William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporation · California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. · Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n order imposing a sanction upon counsel, a nonparty in the underlying action, is final and appealable by the person sanctioned, when the sanction is imposed.”
2 later decisions 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.