Nos. 91-1230, 91-1231’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Tal, Sports Racing Services, Inc. v. Sports Car Club of America, Inc. (1997)
4 federal appellate · 17 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
Relies on Hishon v. King & Spalding · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the harm; (2) improper motive or intent of defendants; (3) whether the claimed injury is one sought to be redressed by antitrust damages; (4) the directness between the injury and the market restraint resulting from the alleged violation; (5) the speculative nature of the damages claimed; and (6) the risk of duplicative recoveries or complex damage apportionment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the causal connection between the antitrust violation and the plaintiffs injury; the defendant’s intent; the nature of the plaintiffs injury; the directness or the indirectness of the connection between the plaintiffs injury and the unlawful market restraint; the speculativeness of the plaintiffs damages; and the risk of duplicative recoveries or ... the danger of complex apportionment of damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]alaried employees ... are not within the area of competitive economy protected against [antitrust violations] ... we perceive no limitation in the clear and well-reasoned basis for the broad principle ... that employees simply cannot establish an antitrust injury as a result of some allegedly anticompetitive activity directed at or involving their employer.”
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.