Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
929 F.2d 1577 · 1991
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Hines Sevier v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (1991), Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. (1992)
5 federal appellate · 2 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 19 U.S.C. § 1677F (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 2640 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Atlantic Sugar, Ltd. v. United States · First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission · US Steel Corporation v. United States US
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shorthand for a counsel’s activities, association, and relationship with a client that are such as to involve counsel’s advice and participation in any or all of the client’s decisions (pricing, product design, etc.) made in light of similar or corresponding information about a competitor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like retained counsel, however, in-house counsel are officers of the court, are bound by the same Code of Professional Responsibility, and are subject to the same sanctions. In-house counsel provide the same services and are subject to the same types of pressures as retained counsel. The problem and importance of avoiding inadvertent disclosure is the same for both. Inadvertence, like the thief-in-the-night, is no respecter of its victims. Inadvertent or accidental disclosure may or may not be predictable. To the extent that it may be predicted, and cannot be adequately forestalled in the design of a protective order, it may be a factor in the access decision. Whether an unacceptable opportunity for inadvertent disclosure exists, however, must be determined, as above indicated, by the facts on a counsel-by-counsel basis, and cannot be determined solely by giving controlling weight to the classification of counsel as in-house rather than retained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law....”
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.