Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 358 · 1987
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably 29 Cal. 4th 53 - Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002), General Motors Corporation Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 94-1064 94-1194 94-1195 94-1198 94-1202 94-1203 94-1207 94-1208 94-1219 (1995)
65 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Califano v. Sanders · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Bounds v. Smith · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is important to identify the source of the injury to competition. If the injury is caused by persuading the government, then the antitrust laws do not apply to the squelching (Parker v. Brown) or the persuasion (Noerr-Pennington). If the injury flows directly from the “petitioning” — if the injury occurs no matter how the government responds to the request for aid — then we have an antitrust case. When private parties help themselves to a reduction in competition, the antitrust laws apply.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“raised the market price to its own advantage.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Conn. Ironworkers Employers' Ass'n v. New Eng. Reg'l Council of Carpenters · 1997-1 Trade Cases P 71,818, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3865, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6578 Mary Forsyth Marrietta Cade Willie Andrews Mary Lou Buehler Helen Staves Randolph Bratten and Searle Auto Glass, Inc., D/B/A Best Glass Company v. Humana, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation and Does I Through X, Inclusive“The prompt decision on certification would both fix the identities of the parties to the suit and prevent the absent class members from waiting to see how things turned out before deciding what to do.... So a person's decision whether to be bound by the judgmentlike the court's decision whether to certify the classwould come well in advance of the decision on the merits. Under the scheme of the revised Rule 23, a member of the class must cast his lot at the beginning of the suit and all parties are bound, for good or ill, by the results.”
2 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.