Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 NY2D 327 - Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Abrams’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 812 F. Supp. 387 - Re-Alco Industries, Inc. v. National Center for Health Education, Inc. (1993), 387 F. Supp. 2d 283 - Leider v. Ralfe (2005)

3 district · 3 state decisions

2701988199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “Evety contract, agreement, arrangement or combination whereby A monopoly in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state, is or may be established or maintained, or whereby Competition or the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state is or may be restrained or whereby For the purpose of establishing or maintaining any such monopoly or unlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state any business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of any service is or may be restrained, is hereby declared to be against public policy, illegal and void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This court has held that the Donnelly Act, having been modeled after the Federal Sherman Act of 1890, should generally be construed in light of Federal precedent and given a different interpretation only where State policy, differences in the statutory language or the legislative history justifies such a result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “unanimous judgment of the intermediate appellate courts”
    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.