Patrick v. Burget’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 1498 · 1986
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Stump v. Sparkman · Parker v. Brown · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. · Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana Federation of Dentists · Town of Hallie v. City of Eau Claire
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case, the court was aware of the Clinic doctors' position on immunities (the arguments were made in the pretrial brief and in support of motions for directed verdicts), and so the issues are properly before us.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ctions within the scope of a state official's authority, taken pursuant to express state policy, which are contemplated by the statutory scheme, are actions of the state and therefore immune.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the legislature contemplated the kind of activity complained of. That is, it must be clear that the legislature intended to replace competition with regulation.”
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.