Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Pepsico, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 64 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lum, Frederico v. Home Depot (2007)
19 federal appellate · 64 district · 1 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. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 3501 (Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 3502 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he legal theories set forth in Pennsylvania's brief are helpful only to the extent that they find support in the allegations set forth in the complaint. It is axiomatic that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“using a coding identification system to trace and monitor soft drink sales; fining bottlers when their product is shipped out of their territory; refusing to deal with resellers who engage in transshipping; refusing to deal with resellers who buy from or sell to other resellers; threatening termination of resellers who engage in such sales; and limiting sales to resellers to the amount the reseller needs solely for its own retail sales, in order to prevent that reseller from wholesaling.”
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.