← 870 F.2d 397 - Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc.

Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

870 F.2d 397 · 1989

Citation profile

cited by 66 later decisions

states following

May 2019

most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. (1990), Sanjuan v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc. (1994)

27 federal appellate · 6 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)

Relies on National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States · Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma · Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. · American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.

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

“There can be no restraint of trade without a restraint.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 390 F. Supp. 3d 892 - U.S. Bd. of Oral Implantology v. Am. Bd. of Dental Specialties
“'when a trade association provides information' (by giving its approval in that case, its disapproval in this case) 'but does not constrain others to follow its recommendations, it does not violate the antitrust laws.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 390 F. Supp. 3d 892 - U.S. Bd. of Oral Implantology v. Am. Bd. of Dental Specialties · 920 F. Supp. 1287 - AD/SAT v. Associated Press
“Ophthalmologists are each others’ rivals for custom[ers]. They offer competing procedures .... Plaintiffs say that the Academy is in the grip of professors and practitioners who favor conservative treatment, forever calling for more research (the better to justify the academics’ requests for grants); plaintiffs portray themselves as the progressives, disdaining the Academy’s fuddy-duddies in order to put the latest knowledge to work. Warfare among suppliers and their different products is competition. Anti-trust law does not compel your competitor to praise your product or sponsor your work. To require cooperation or friendliness among rivals is to undercut the intellectual foundation of anti-trust law. Unless one group of suppliers diminishes another’s ability to peddle its wares (technically, reduces rivals’ elasticity of supply), there is not even the beginning of an anti-trust case, no reason to investigate further to determine whether the restraint is “reasonable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 709 F. Supp. 2d 802 - TYR Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc. · 249 F. Supp. 2d 463 - Santana Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

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.