Catlin v. Washington Energy Co.’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.2d 1343 · 1986
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Fishman v. Estate of Wirtz (1986), Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1986)
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Reavis v. Antinore
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o constitute a valid claim under Section 2, the introduction of the product in a second market must involve “some associated conduct which constitutes an anticompetitive abuse or leverage of monopoly power ... rather than aggressive competition on the merits.” [Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534 ] Id. at 545-46 [(9th Cir.1983)]. See also Betaseed, Inc. v. U and I, Inc., 681 F.2d 1203 , 1231 n. 42 (9th Cir.1982) (“A firm may not use its mar ket position as a lever to create a monopoly in another market,” We have not adopted a monopoly leveraging theory flatly prohibiting the use of lawfully acquired monopoly power in one market to gain any competitive advantage in another market, especially where there has been no attempt to monopolize in the second market and no abuse of monopoly power in the first. We question whether Berkey Photo itself prohibits such leveraging. It defined “uses of monopoly power” to exclude reaping benefits of “efficient size,” integration and “competitive advantages of [a monopoly’s] broad-based activity.” 603 F.2d at 276 . Moreover, we have not held that monopoly leveraging is a separate Section 2 violation with elements of proof distinct from monopolization or attempted monopolization. Other circuits have not adopted the “monopoly leveraging” theory announced by the Second Circuit in Berkey Photo. See, e.g., Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 735 F.2d 577 , 586 n.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he use of monopoly power in one market to gain a competitive advantage in another is a violation of Section 2, even if there has not been an attempt to monopolize the second market. It is the use of economic power that creates the liability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we believe that such conduct provides little basis for establishing antitrust liability on a leveraging theory. III DISCUSSION 8 The monopoly leveraging theory, if it exists at all, requires a showing of the following elements: 9 (1) monopoly power in a relevant market; (2) challenged activities in a defined second market, distinct from the first (monopoly) market; (3)”
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.