In Re Potash Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2011
4 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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15B (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 19 U.S.C. § 1673B (Tariff Act of 1930) · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · United States v. Diebold, Inc.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[H]is opinions can be no more reliable than the factual underpinnings upon which they have been predicated. With modest exception, the mere passage of an untrustworthy evidentiary showing, through the mechanism of an expert’s Report, will be wholly unavailing in curing the foundational deficiencies. In voicing his opinions, Dr. Rausser has necessarily accepted, as reasonable, the ambiguous showings that Matsushita regards as nonprobative. We may not do likewise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he structure of the industry is conducive to the formation of a price fixing conspiracy ... certain of the Defendants’ actions were inconsistent with individually rational, and economically maximizing, behavior ... and [according to his statistical model] the prices that were existent, during the conspiracy, exceeded the prices that had been fore-casted in the model, by an average of 35 percent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“evidence that the alleged conspirators were aware of each other's prices, before announcing their own prices, 'is nothing more than a restatement of conscious parallelism,' which is not enough to show an antitrust conspiracy.”
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.