Illinois Corporate Travel, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 722 · 1986
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (1997), Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n (1987)
22 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · United States v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An air carrier establishes and announces to the public a price for its service. The airline determines the number and destination of flights and the equipment to be used on each. A traveler may reserve seats directly from the airline or through a travel agent; in either case the reservation is likely to be made on a computer that records the number of seats remaining on a flight and the price of each. The travel agent must obtain the airline’s clearance (by computer) to book a flight. The agent does not purchase a seat for resale and does not hold an inventory of seats.... The airline or any agent in the country can sell the same seat. It remains available until reserved — and sometimes even after, for air earners “overbook” to deal with no-shows. The traveler with a ticket goes to the airport and is served directly by the airline. If the traveler does not show up, the seat may fly empty and the airline loses the sale.... The travel service operator takes no risk of unfilled seats or of the many problems, from mechanical difficulties to weather, that may make the airline unable to deliver transportation as promised. The airline takes all credit risks on the credit cards it accepts. True, as McTravel argues, the travel agent loses its commission when the traveler does not show and has his ticket refunded, but this is true of any agent when a sale falls through. The relation of travel agent to airline is not substantially different from the relation of broker to real estate own”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Of course, conclusions that depend on the record compiled so far might be altered if additional facts adduced at trial show that the district court has mischar-acterized the nature of the relationship between airlines and travel service operators. Here and elsewhere, we speak only of the conclusion drawn on the basis of the existing record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff must demonstrate that the firm is behaving in a way that is inconsistent with unilateral decisionmaking.... This means showing that the defendant acted in a way that, but for a hypothesis of joint action, would not be in its own interest.”
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.