National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Charter Financial Group, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 1396 · 1984
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2007 · most notably Wood v. President and Trustees of Spring Hill College in City of Mobile (1992), Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories (1995)
23 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An erroneous instruction does not require reversal unless the reviewing court is 'left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has the right to deal, or refuse to deal, with whomever it likes, as long as it does so independently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when accompanied by the intent to monopolize and the requisite degree of market power....”
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.