Stathos v. Bowden’s Empirical Analysis
728 F.2d 15 · 1984
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2019 · most notably Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993), Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (1986)
42 federal appellate · 12 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Allen v. McCurry · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. · Washington v. Davis
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he cases employing it have rested in large part on precedent drawn from the antitrust field, where considerations underlying the need for an ‘intracorporate’ exception to ordinary conspiracy principles are very different. The evil at which the ‘conspiracy’ section of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 , is aimed is an evil that exists only when two different business enterprises join to make a decision, such as fixing a price, that in a competitive world each would take separately. Moreover, an individual decision to do the same thing is not only legitimately socially useful but also may often require joint decision-making by managers within a single enterprise.... Indeed, we do not see why [the exception] should extend — if at all — beyond the ministerial acts of several executives needed to carry out a single discretionary decision.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]efendants argue that the court should not have included 38.5 hours that plaintiffs' attorneys needed to defend a state declaratory judgment action that [defendants] brought against them once it learned that they intended to sue [defendants] in federal court. The issues in the state suit were virtually the same as in the federal case. Defendants appeared to have filed it in order to preempt the federal action. And plaintiffs were forced to defend it lest they lose their § 1983 claim in the federal courts through collateral estoppel. Defense of the state court action was a necessary part of plaintiffs' efforts to achieve their § 1983 goal. It formed part of an "action ... to enforce a provision of sections ... 1983 [and] 1985...," 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , and plaintiffs thus can recover attorney's fees. [ Id. at 22 (citations omitted).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We also believe that the statutory requirement that “two or more persons ... conspire or go in disguise on the highway,” is not satisfied by proof that a discriminatory business decision reflects the collective judgment of two or more executives of the same firm. We do not suggest that an agent’s action within the scope of his authority will always avoid a conspiracy finding. Agents of the Klan certainly could not carry out acts of violence with impunity simply because they were acting under orders from the Grand Dragon. But if the challenged conduct is essentially a single act of discrimination by a single business entity, the fact that two or more agents participated in the decision or in the act itself will normally not constitute the conspiracy contemplated by this statute.”
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.