Flegel v. Christian Hospital, Northeast-Northwest’s Empirical Analysis
4 F.3d 682 · 1993
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Coastal Fuels of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp. (1996), Bathke v. Casey's General Stores, Inc. (1995)
29 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde · Houltin v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“proof of actual detrimental effects, such as a reduction of output,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Like any other issue, market definition is subject to summary judgment if the plaintiffs fail to provide sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find in their favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Medical Staff is, however, entitled to exclude individual doctors, including osteopaths, on the basis of their lack of professional competence or unprofessional conduct. If York’s policy toward D.O.’s could be viewed as a form of industry self-regulation of this type, the rule of reason, rather than a per se rule, would be applicable. We recognize, therefore, that in many cases involving exclusion from staff privilege, courts will, more or less openly, have to utilize a rule of reason balancing approach. This case is different, however, because York has not contended that osteopaths as a group are less qualified than M.D.s. In the absence of such a contention, or another legitimate explanation for the discrimination, we conclude that a per se rule should be applied, since the effect of the practice is identical to that of the traditional boycott, and plainly anticom-petitive.”
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.