Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

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

1. “"[W]hen circumstances surrounding the enactment of laws ... cast doubt on the otherwise clear language of the statutes themselves, we must look to other factors in determining legislative intent. Siegelman [v. Chase Manhattan Bank (USA), N.A., 575 So.2d 1041 (Ala.1991)]. In an effort to avoid indulging in conjecture or searching for imaginary purposes with respect to these antitrust statutes, we have followed the well-settled rule of statutory construction `that it is permissible in ascertaining [the purpose and intent of a statute] to look to the history of the times, the existing order of things, the state of the law when the instrument was adopted, and the conditions necessitating such adoption. ' In re Upshaw, 247 Ala. [221,] at 223, 23 So.2d [861,] at 863 [(1945)]."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Brown v. Board of Education · 863 So. 2d 73 - Brown v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF MONTG. COUNTY

2. “"We hold only that the field of operation of Alabama's antitrust statutes, specifically § 6-5-60, is no greater today than it was when the laws were first enacted. Thus, these statutes regulate monopolistic activities that occur `within this state'—within the geographic boundaries of this state—even if such activities fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 790 So. 2d 248 - Freeman v. DUPONT PHARMACEUTICALS CO. · 362 F. Supp. 3d 510 - In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation

3. “"[§ 8-10-1] Any person or corporation who engages or agrees with other persons or corporations or enters, directly or indirectly, into any combination, pool, trust, or confederation to regulate or fix the price of any article or commodity to be sold or produced within this state or any person or corporation who enters into, becomes a member of or party to any pool agreement, combination, or confederation to fix or limit the quantity of any article or commodity to be produced, manufactured, mined, or sold in this state must be fined, on conviction, not less than $500 nor more than $2,000." "[§ 8-10-2] Any corporation chartered under the laws of this state or any officer, stockholder, agent, or employee of any such corporation which enters into any combination with any other corporation or person with the intent to place the management or control of any such corporation in the hands of another corporation or person and thereby limit or fix the price, restrict or diminish the production, manufacture, sale, use, or consumption of any article of commerce must be fined, on conviction, not less than $500 nor more than $2,000." "[§ 8-10-3] Any person or corporation, domestic or foreign, which shall restrain, or attempt to restrain, the freedom of trade or production, or which shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, the production, control, or sale of any commodity or the prosecution, management, or control of any kind, class, or description of business or which shall destroy, or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co.