Volvo North America Corporation v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III’s Empirical Analysis
857 F.2d 55 · 1988
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Bf Goodrich, Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine (2005)
35 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Foman v. Davis · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury; (2) the existence of an identifiable class of persons whose self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement; (3) the speculativeness of the alleged injury; and (4) the difficulty of identifying damages and apportioning them among direct and indirect victims so as to avoid duplicative recoveries.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“antitrust injury, which is to say injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”
3 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.