Moore v. Backus’s Empirical Analysis
78 F.2d 571 · 1935
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Barnes Coal Corp. v. Retail Coal Merchants Ass'n (1942), PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. Partnership (2004)
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Brown v. Walker · Swift v. Tyson · Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta · Robertson v. Baldwin
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The federal statute [the Sherman Act] ... is quite general in its nature, and its successful enforcement would seem to require a uniform interpretation in its application, as well as a uniform interpretation of the [question of survivability].... There is nothing in the character of the legal action ... which render[s] it local ..., and the construction of the common law and of the statutes involved we think must come under the classification of general jurisprudence, and is to be determined by the federal courts. Id., at 575 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The cause of action created by the Sherman Act is based, not on injuries affecting the person, but on injuries affecting property rights. It is given to ‘any “person” who shall be injured in his business or property’ by unlawful practices forbidden by the act * * *. This, of course, is an injury of a very different sort from an injury to the person; and the great weight of authority is to the effect that the cause of action survives.” [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brazier v. Cherry““Accepting as true the allegations of the declaration in the legal action, it would seem that decedent suffered a property injury within the meaning of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peto v. Howell
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.