Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 FSUPP 304 - USA Network v. Jones Intercable, Inc.

USA Network v. Jones Intercable, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
April 2016
most recently cited

1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Hj Inc v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company · Alexander v. United States

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

  1. “On three (3) months’ advance written notice, USA may change the rates, if any, set forth on the Basic service Schedule or Tiered Service Schedule, as the case may be. If such change increases the rate payable by Affiliate with respect to subscribers in a CATV System, then Affiliate may notify USA, within thirty (30) days of the giving of such notice, that Affiliate regards such change as unacceptable and wishes to terminate this Agreement solely with respect to any CATV System as to which such increase is applicable. In the event that Affiliate so notifies USA that such change is unacceptable under the provisions of this [section], this Agreement shall terminate on the date such proposed change becomes effective, unless within thirty (80) days of receiving Affiliate’s notice, USA notifies Affiliate that USA has decided not to make such proposed change...”
    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.