Kresky Enterprises Corporation v. Magid’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.2d 206 · 1983
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Eisenberg v. Gagnon (1985), Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1992)
28 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““... ‘only if, as a matter of law, the record is critically deficient of that minimum quantity of evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief ’ Dudley v. South Jersey Metal, Inc., 555 F.2d 96, 101 (3d Cir.1977). In considering a motion for judgment n.o.v., the court ‘must expose the evidence to the strongest light favorable to the party against whom the motion is made and give him the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference.’ Inventive Music Ltd. v. Cohen, 617 F.2d 29, 31 (3d Cir. 1980).” (emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Plaintiffs] burden of proving the fact of damage under § 4 of the Clayton Act is satisfied by its proof of some damage flowing from the unlawful conspiracy; inquiry beyond this minimum point goes only to the amount and not the fact of damages. It is enough that the illegality is shown to be a material cause of the injury; a plaintiff need not exhaust all possible alternative sources of injury in fulfilling his burden of proving compensable injury under § 4.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]laintiffs must be free to select their own [antitrust] damages theories as long as they are supported by a reasonable foundation.”
3 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.