Arnold Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
786 F.2d 564 · 1986
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1992), Paoli Railroad Yard Pcb Litigation Brown v. Monsanto Company (1990)
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1221 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1222 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Patterson v. United States · Bates v. State Bar · 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that the defendants contracted, combined or conspired among each other; (2) that the combination or conspiracy produced adverse, anti-competitive effects within the relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the objects of and the conduct pursuant to that contract or conspiracy were illegal; and (4) that the plaintiffs were injured as a proximate result of that conspiracy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that [GMC acted] independently.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[r]eviewing this evidence and drawing the inferences from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to Arnold Pontiac as the party opposing the summary judgment motion, Goodman [v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566 , 573 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977) ], we must infer that the Better Buy Buick Association's conduct contributed to GMC's decision not to award Arnold the Buick franchise.”
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.