Feitelson v. Google Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 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 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At the same time, however, we agree with plaintiffs that a monopolist's use of exclusive contracts, in certain circumstances, may give rise to a § 2 violation even though the contracts foreclose less than the roughly 40% or 50% share usually required in order to establish a § 1 violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[p]laintiffs elide[d] allegations concerning the number of supply chain levels between OEMs...and end consumers like [the] [p]laintiffs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'[s]ubstantial share' has been quantified as foreclosure of 40% to 50% of the relevant market.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.