Thompson v. Metropolitan Multi-List, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 1998-2 City of Tuscaloosa (1998), U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Industries, Inc. (1993)
42 federal appellate · 3 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 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Warth v. Seldin · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · Times-Picayune Pub 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) that there are two separate products, a “tying” product and a “tied” product; 2) that those products are in fact “tied” together — that is, the buyer was forced to buy the tied product to get the tying product; 3) that the seller possesses sufficient economic power in the tying product market to coerce buyer acceptance of the tied product; 4) involvement of a “not insubstantial” amount of interstate commerce in the market of the tied product; and 5) the tying company has an economic interest in the tied product.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] defendant cannot benefit by the application of the standing doctrine from the fact that it is able to prevent the plaintiff from becoming a [competitor].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The fundamental error of the district judge in delineating the geographic market ... was the mistaken premise that the standard market tests may be abandoned or ignored and replaced with a less demanding "submarket test." Von Kalinowski, in his standard treatise ..., clearly refutes the lower court’s supposition: This concept, that a relevant submarket may constitute the geographic market for Section 2 purposes, does not, however, mean that a new test has been promulgated for determining the relevant geographic market. It merely emphasizes the general rule that although the geographic market in some instances may encompass the entire nation, under other circumstances it may be a much smaller area, i.e., a relevant submarket. Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation § 8.01[2], at 8-27 (footnotes omitted). Accordingly, the proper criteria for defining a geographic market is that area in which the seller operates, and to which the purchaser can practicably turn for supply. While that area is not ordinarily susceptible to a metes and bounds definition, it is the area in which producers effectively compete.”
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.