Fallis v. Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
866 F.2d 209 · 1989
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2012
10 federal appellate · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1404
Relies on Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Intercontinental Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom Inc. · Miller v. Miller
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the causal connection between the antitrust violation and the harm to the plaintiff and whether that harm was intended to be caused; (2) the nature of the plaintiff’s alleged injury including the status of the plaintiff as consumer or competitor in the relevant market; (3) the directness or indirectness of the injury, and the related inquiry of whether the damages are speculative; (4) the potential for duplicative recovery or complex apportionment of damages; and (5) the existence of more direct victims of the alleged antitrust violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no useful policy is served by granting standing to a terminated employee for a product market violation that is known to others. Thus the court in Donahue was wrong in granting standing to commission salesmen who were allegedly terminated because they objected to their employer’s resale price maintenance scheme. In such a case the impact of the violation falls upon the dealers upon whom resale price maintenance is imposed, and they will know of the violation and have an incentive to sue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“prices. Fallis claimed, under the first Southaven factor, that the manufacturer's plan to eliminate discount sales injured him by reducing his commissions. We concluded, however, that Fallis's injury was”
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.