Valley Liquors, Inc. v. Renfield Importers, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 656 · 1987
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Street v. Jc Bradford & Company (1989), H.L. Hayden Co. of New York v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. (1989)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service 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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A genuine issue for trial only exists when there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmovant for a jury to return a verdict for that party. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” We must not weigh the evidence. Instead, we must see if the non-movant’s evidence is sufficient. In determining whether evidence is sufficient, we must of necessity consider the substantive evidentiary standard of proof, for example, preponderance of the evidence, that would apply at a trial on the merits. In addition, we draw all inferences in favor of the nonmovant. Such inferences, however, must be “justifiable”. (Citations and footnote omitted).”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the responsibility of going beyond the pleadings and setting forth 'specific facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action.' " Valley Liquors, 822 F.2d at 660 (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 588, 106 S.Ct. at 1356). In other words, the plaintiff must provide "evidence tending to exclude the possibility that [the defendants] acted independently, or that would show that the inference of conspiracy to fix prices is reasonable in light of the competing inference of independent action.”
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.