Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.2d 1150 · 1984
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1985), Weiss v. York Hospital (1984)
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 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.
Appellate journey
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. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Allen v. McCurry · Montana v. United States · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · United States v. United Mine Workers of America
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion under Rule 26(c) to limit discovery requires the district judge to compare the hardship to the party against whom discovery is sought, if discovery is allowed, with the hardship to the party seeking discovery if discovery is denied. He must consider the nature of the hardship as well as its magnitude, and thus give more weight to interests that have a distinctively social value than to purely private interests; and he must consider the possibility of reconciling the compet ing interests through a carefully crafted protective order.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although ... discovery orders may impose heavy and irrecoverable costs on a party, to make every such order appealable as of right would lead to unacceptable delays in litigation. Confining the right to get appellate review of discovery orders to cases where the party against whom the order was directed cared enough to incur a sanction for contempt is a crude but serviceable method, well established in the case law, of identifying the most burdensome discovery orders and in effect waiving the finality requirement for them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“boycotts are illegal per se only if used to enforce agreements that are themselves illegal per se --for example price fixing agreements.”
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.