Elizabeth Hospital, Inc. v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
269 F.2d 167 · 1959
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 1990 · most notably Donatelli v. National Hockey League (1990), Page v. Work (1961)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co. · Local 167 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen Helpers of America v. United States · Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom · Buder v. Becker
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Interference with intrastate activity cannot constitute a violation of the Sherman Act unless its effect on interstate commerce is both substantial and direct.” 269 F.2d at 170.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no allegation in the complaint remotely suggesting that the acts of defendants cast any burden upon interstate commerce. The mere fact that plaintiff at his location in Arkansas may be treating patients from other states who must travel interstate does not result in practic- ing his profession in interstate commerce, as the transportation of such patients is incidental. The practice of his profession as disclosed by the allegations of his complaint is neither trade nor commerce within Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, nor are there any allegations in the complaint indicating that the actions of defendants here complained of resulted in a monopoly within the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. Plaintiff has not been prevented from practicing his profession, but in the final analysis his complaint is that he could practice it more profitably but for the acts of the defendants.”
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.