Berghausen v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 district · 12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · California v. Arc America Corp. · Hodel v. Irving · In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation
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.
“Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any person or corporation by reason of the doing by any person or persons of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this chapter may sue therefor in the cireuit or superior court of any county in which the defendant or defendants, or any of them, reside or are found without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover a penalty of threefold the damages which may be sustained, , together with the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“representations . . . made either orally or in writing . . . that a specific price advantage exists . . ., if it does not and if the supplier knows or should reasonably know that it does not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.