Capital Telephone Co. v. New York Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
750 F.2d 1154 · 1984
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2000
7 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. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 47 U.S.C. § 151
Relies on Parker v. Brown · Bates v. State Bar of Arizona · Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. · City of Lafayette Louisiana v. Louisiana Power & Light Company
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No ... telephone corporation shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation or locality, or subject any particular person, corporation or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'contemplated the kind of action complained of.'”
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.