Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.3d 69 - Steele v. Hospital Corp. of America

Steele v. Hospital Corp. of America’s Empirical Analysis

36 F.3d 69 · 1994

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Joseph Maio (2000), Evans v. City of Chicago (2006)

15 federal appellate · 16 district · 1 state decisions

2001994200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation · Shaw v. Barr · Dock v. American Telephone & Telegraph Technologies

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

  1. “a showing of injury requires proof of concrete financial loss, and not mere injury to a valuable intangible property interest.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The district court explained that it was the insurance companies and not the patients themselves who suffered financial loss from the allegedly fraudulent health care billings_It is not enough that the patients show that their insurance company had to pay out more than it otherwise would have without the alleged RICO violation. This does not constitute financial loss to them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “restrictive significance, Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 , 339, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2331 . . . (1979), which helps to assure that RICO is not expanded to provide a federal cause of action and treble damages to every tort plaintiff.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.