Pepper v. Apple Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
846 F.3d 313 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Kansas v. UtiliCorp United Inc. · Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]enying late-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions and relegating defendants to the three procedural avenues specified in Rule 12(h)(2) can produce unnecessary and costly delays, contrary to the direction of Rule 1.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant who fails to assert a failure-to-state-a-claim defense in a pre-answer Rule 12 motion cannot assert that defense in a later pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(6).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in light of the general policy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
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.