Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 854 F.2d 168 - Kowalski v. Chicago Tribune Co.

Kowalski v. Chicago Tribune Co.’s Empirical Analysis

854 F.2d 168 · 1988

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp. (1991), Diginet, Incorporated v. Western Union Ats, Incorporated, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant v. City of Chicago, Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee (1992)

12 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

15019881990200020102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon · Albrecht v. Herald Co. · Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. · Simpson v. United Oil Company of California

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A request for a preliminary injunction is evaluated in accordance with a 'sliding scale' approach: the more the balance of irreparable harm inclines in the plaintiff's favor, the smaller the likelihood of prevailing on the merits he need show in order to get the injunction.”
    5 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.