Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 234 - Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.

Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co.’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 234 · 1987

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hospital (1988), Grimmett v. Brown (1996)

41 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

3401987199020002010decided

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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act)

Relies on Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · American Sterilizer Co. v. Sybron Corp.

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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A continuing violation is one in which the plaintiffs interests are repeatedly invaded and a cause of action arises each time the plaintiff is injured. However, even when a plaintiff alleges a continuing violation, an overt act by the defendant is required to restart the statute of limitations and the statute runs from the last overt act.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) It must be a new and independent act that is not merely a reaffirmation of a previous act; and (2) it must inflict new and accumulating injury on the plaintiff.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]hen a continuing antitrust violation is alleged, a cause of action accrues each time a plaintiff is injured by an act of the defendants.”
    4 later decisions 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.