Ward v. Apple Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
791 F.3d 1041 · 2015
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co · At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impeded the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California , 547 F.3d 962 , 970 (9th Cir. 2008). This”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have offered little guidance regarding which interests warrant legal protection under Rule 19.”
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.