7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 27 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab Anchor | green | “the more compelling the prima facie case, the more evidence the defendant must present to rebut it successfully.” | 8 |
| 2 | American Council Of Certified Podiatric Physicians And Surgeons v. American Board Of Podiatric Surgery, Inc. | green | “establishing credibility naturally seems to be a significant barrier to entry, particularly for an enterprise that depends heavily upon reputation, such as certification of medical specialists.” | 4 |
| 3 | United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A., and Oy Tampella Ab | green | “because the defendants also provided compelling evidence on ease of entry into this market, we need not decide whether these findings, without more, are sufficient to rebut the government's prima facie case.” | 3 |
| 4 | Federal Trade Commission v. University Health, Inc. | green | “show that the market-share statistics give an inaccurate account of the acquisition's possible effect on competition in the relevant market” | 3 |
| 5 | Advo, Inc. v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., D/B/A Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Daily News | green | “we do not question the judgment of other courts of appeals that in other market contexts reputation is a significant barrier to entry.” | 3 |
| 6 | In Re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices, Etc. | green | “employee skill levels required for a firm to be successful” | 3 |
| 7 | Federal Trade Commission v. Cardinal Health, Inc. | green | “although the courts have not yet found that power buyers alone enable a defendant to overcome the government's presumption of anti-competitiveness, courts have found that the existence of power buyers can be considered in their evaluation of an anti-trust case, along with such o…” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.