Berning v. Gooding’s Empirical Analysis
820 F.2d 1550 · 1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2003
3 federal appellate · 2 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
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) · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 602 · 7 U.S.C. § 608 · 7 U.S.C. § 608A · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc. · Alonzo v. ACF Property Management, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Secretary still sets the salable quantity and allotment percentages.”
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.