194 Ill. 2d 438 - Garibaldi v. Applebaum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

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

1. “The plaintiff contends that the hospital's exclusive contract with Cardiovascular Medical effectively revoked his privileges to perform open heart surgery at St. Francis and that the hospital's actions are subject to judicial review to determine whether he was afforded the necessary notice and hearing procedures in compliance with the hospital's bylaws. The plaintiff contends further that he may recover damages for the hospital's failure to provide him with notice and a hearing. In this case, we do not believe that the plaintiff suffered a revocation, suspension, or reduction of his clinical privileges within the meaning of the hospital bylaws. By the terms of the bylaws, clinical privileges are defined as "the permission to provide medical or other patient care services in the Hospital within well-defined limits, based on the individual's professional license, experience, competence, ability and judgment." The granting of privileges, therefore, signifies that a doctor is qualified to practice at the hospital. There is no doubt, in this case, that St. Francis has determined that the plaintiff is qualified, and that determination is embodied in the privileges the plaintiff has been granted. The right to exercise those privileges, however, is a separate matter that may be affected by a host of hospital administrative decisions that are wholly unrelated to the doctor's professional competence or ethics. For example, a hospital may decide, for economic reasons, that it will no lo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 784 So. 2d 1151 - PALM SPRINGS GENERAL HOSP., INC. v. Valdes

2. “Actions which limit, reduce, suspend or revoke membership or clinical privileges of a practitioner on the staff of the Hospital or revoke staff membership shall be deemed to be adverse to the practitioner and shall entitle the practitioner to notice and the hearing and appeal procedures as provided in Article VIII. These actions include: * * * (2) Reduction, suspension or revocation of clinical privileges and/or admitting privileges; * * * (4) Suspension or revocation of specific clinical privileges or Staff membership; (5) Other similar actions. Such actions constitute a recommendation by the Executive Committee to the Governing Body.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 155 N.C. App. 574 - Plummer v. Community General Hospital of Thomasville, Inc.

3. ““Even if the appellate court were bound by the law of the case it had announced in the first appeals, that limitation would not apply to this court. Although this court denied petitions for leave to appeal in both of the previous appeals of these cases, such action has no precedential effect and in no way amounts to a consideration of the merits of the cases. Nor does it indicate approval of the appellate court’s action. [Citation.] Therefore, this is the first time these cases have been before us on the merits. Our review may cover all matters properly raised and passed on in the course of litigation. [Citation.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 225 Ill. 2d 456 - International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. Lowe Excavating Co.