Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 1344 - Miller v. Hedlund

Miller v. Hedlund’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 1344 · 1986

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably US Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell (2010), TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer (2001)

8 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions

1101986199020002010decided

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 Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Parker v. Brown · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “compels activity that would otherwise be a per se violation of the Sherman Act.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[c]ertain restraints may be characterized as `hybrid' in that nonmarket mechanisms merely enforce private marketing decisions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “examine both the federal interest and the state interest and resolve the conflict between them in accordance with what is at stake for each in reality in the concrete case — the court must examine the purpose of the federal rule and the extent to which the state rule frustrates that purpose; the avowed purposes of the state rule and their closeness to the interests the Twenty-first Amendment serve; and the extent to which, in reality, the state rule serves its avowed purposes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.