Ring v. Spina’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1984
3 federal appellate · 3 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 17 (§ 6 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. · Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co. · Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. · Ring v. Spina · Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief which would protect him against prospective damage. 15 U.S.C. § 26 . Such damage arises when there is danger of interference with rights or privileges he now enjoys, not merely as a member of the general public, but as one engaging in the commerce which is being restrained.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.