Fischer v. NWA, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 594 · 1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably the Serpa Corporation v. McWane Inc Anaco Anaheim Foundry Company and Tyler Pipe Industries (1999), Midwestern Machinery, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1999)
6 federal appellate · 22 district ·
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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In my view, the judicial review provisions of the Federal Aviation Act should not be interpreted to preclude independent judicial action to enforce the antitrust laws where, as here, the agency has specifically declined to grant antitrust immunity to the approved transaction. The doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction is to be invoked only when a court finds that it has been totally ousted of jurisdiction because Congress, in enacting the regulatory statute, “intended to override the fundamental national policies embodied in the antitrust laws.” ... Where immunity is granted, I agree that the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review the challenged action. But where immunity is neither requested by the carrier nor granted by the agency, district courts should be free to entertain antitrust challenges such as the plaintiff has presented in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the Board could, if it chose, approve of activities that it would not immunize____ The Board will not have to always choose between disapproval and antitrust immunity, and the parties will know that they cannot misbehave after initial approval and expect to use a Federal law as a shield against antitrust liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“prove more than injury causally linked to an illegal presence in the market. Plaintiffs must prove 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.”
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.