Brown Md’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
25 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Eric Wright v. Abbott Laboratories Inc -, Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital (2005)
25 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Holmes v. United States · Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in furtherance of quality health care, (2) after a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter, (8) after adequate notice and hearing procedures are afforded to the physician involved or after such other procedures as are fair to the physician under the cireumstances, and (4) in the reasonable belief that the action was warranted by the facts known after such reasonable effort to obtain facts and after meeting the requirement of paragraph (8).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a trial court's decision will not be disturbed unless the appellate court has a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) A member of a professional review committee, a witness before a professional review committee, or any person who files a complaint or otherwise participates in the professional review process shall be immune from suit in any civil or criminal action, including antitrust actions, brought by a physician who is the subject of the review by such professional review committee, if such member made a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter as to which he acted, acted in the reasonable belief that the action taken by him was warranted by the facts, and otherwise acted in good faith within the scope of such professional review committee process and if such witness or participant acted in good faith within the scope of such professional review committee process. (2) The governing board, the individual members of such board, and the entity which has established a peer review committee pursuant to section 12-36.5-104 shall be immune from suit for any damages in a civil or criminal action, including antitrust actions, brought by a physician who is the subject of any action taken by such board or members if such board or its members, acting as individuals, act in good faith. Good faith shall include reliance upon the recommendations of the review committee, but good faith shall not be presumed if the board or a member has knowledge concerning the review in question which would cause such reliance to be unwarranted. Good faith shall also require that the board otherwise acte”
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.