Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 935 F. Supp. 2d 666 - In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation

935 F. Supp. 2d 666 - In re Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 78C (§ 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1344 · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Erickson v. Pardus · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.

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

  1. “(A) received trading advice from Defendants for a fee; (B) traded through Defendants or deposited money with Defendants in connection with a commodities trade; (C) purchased from or sold to Defendants or placed an order for purchase or sale of a commodity through them; or (D) [suffered actual damages resulting from] certain market manipulation activities in connection with the purchase or sale of a commodity contract.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue ... in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “anticompetitive aspect” of Defendants' conduct. Defs.’ Mem. at 33 (quoting In re LIBOR-Based. Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig. (”
    2 later decisions 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.