Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 F.2d 518 - Lovett v. General Motors Corp.

Lovett v. General Motors Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

975 F.2d 518 · 1992

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Innovative Home Health Care Inc v. Pt-Ot Associates of the Black Hills (1998), Sanner v. Board of Trade (1995)

19 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

340199220002010decided

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 Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Arizona v. California · Jones v. Howard · Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready

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

  1. “a district court is convinced that it incorrectly decided a legal question in an interlocutory ruling, the district court may correct the decision to avoid later reversal,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “incidental to the alleged antitrust activity and not the type of loss Congress intended to prevent with the antitrust laws.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the harm to the plaintiff; (2) improper motive; (3) whether the injury was of the type that Congress sought to redress with the antitrust laws; (4) the directness between the injury and the market restraint; (5) the ■ speculative nature of the damages; and (6) the risk of duplicate recoveries or complex damage apportionment.”
    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.