Axis v. Micafil Inc’s Empirical Analysis
870 F.2d 1105 · 1989
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably City of Pittsburgh v. West Penn Power Comp. (1998), Eastman Kodak Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (1997)
14 federal appellate ·
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. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This confusion occurs because the two concepts "share a common ingredient.” The common ingredient is that both requirements limit "recovery to those who have been injured by restraint on competitive forces in the economy." Any inquiry to determine whether antitrust injury has been shown is more limited than one to determine whether the plaintiff has standing. The single determinant of antitrust injury is whether the plaintiff has suffered an “injury the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes [a defendant's] act[ ] unlawful.” On the other hand, even if an antitrust injury is shown sufficiently, standing may be denied on the basis of other factors. The purpose of the additional inquiries is to confine recovery to cases that promote the congressional intent to ensure that consumers receive the benefits of competitive markets.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the causal connection between the antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiff and whether that harm was intended to be caused; (2) the nature of the plaintiffs 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“The injury for which [the plaintiff] sought relief was not inflicted by reason of [the defendant’s] newly-acquired position in the market and the elimination of one competí tor. The patents and licenses' owned and possessed by three companies^] ... not by [the defendant] alone, precluded [the plaintiffs] entry into the U.S. market for armature winding machines. Thus, Axis’ alleged injury is not “of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent” and it did not “flow from” the element of the acquisition that made it unlawful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.