O.S.C. Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 1464 · 1986
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Tw Electrical Service Inc Nn v. Pacific Electrical Contractors Association (1987), Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (2002)
29 federal appellate · 10 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is free to impose a non-price restraint on a dealer so long as there is no pernicious economic effect on interbrand competition.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We scrutinize the evidence and reasonable inferences to determine whether there is sufficient probative evidence to permit 'a finding in favor of the opposing party based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.' ") ) ). Plaintiff fails to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity, with respect to either the ergonomic chair, the 6/29/12 Email, or any other incident. Because there are no genuine disputes of material fact and Plaintiff has failed establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's retaliation claim. Defendant's Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim. B. Failure to Identified Similarly Situated Employees who Were Treated More Favorably Turning to Plaintiff's disparate treatment claims, Plaintiff alleges that similarly situated employees who were not within Plaintiff's protected classifications were not terminated. To identify these similarly situated employees, Plaintiff points to a Report of Investigation prepared in response to his complaint to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The dealers’ evidence of a price-fixing conspiracy consisted of the (1) complaints to Apple about mail order dealers’ price discounts; (2) the outright and sudden elimination of mail order sales and termination of those dealers who continued such sales; (3) several meetings involving dealer and manufacturer representatives in which mail order discounting was allegedly raised; (4) a conversational statement by Apple’s president that while he could not legally discuss pricing, something was going to be done about price erosion; (5) an incident in which Apple allegedly coerced mail order dealers to “get their prices up;” (6) Apple’s alleged conditioning of new locations for mail order dealers upon their agreement to cease discounting; and (7) Apple’s alleged agreement with one of the plaintiffs to not advertise prices.”
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.