Omni Resource Development Corp. v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
739 F.2d 1412 · 1984
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (1993), 108 Wash. 2d 38 - Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (2000)
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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) · 30 U.S.C. § 28
Relies on Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical Corp. · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“undertaken solely to interfere with free competition and without the legitimate expectation that such efforts will in fact induce lawful government action.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a finding of sham requires not only that the suit is baseless, but also that it has other characteristics of grave abuse, such as being coupled with actions or effects external to the suit that are themselves anti-competitive.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“can not be characterized as baseless at all; for although we do know the outcome, at least to the point of a preliminary injunction the state court plaintiffs were successful.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.