65 Ohio App. 2d 136 - Atkins v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Plaintiff-appellant, Donald C. Atkins, D.O., sought staff privileges at Sandusky Memorial Hospital, Sandusky, Ohio. Defendant-appellee, Jack L. Walker, D.O., was a member of the Credentials Committee screening applicants. Dr. Walker, at the request of Dr. Wilbur Cole, the hospital’s chief of staff, mailed a letter, which is the subject of this lawsuit, to Dr. Cole. “The letter became part of the record and hearing at the Joint Conference Committee. Dr. Atkins was denied staff privileges. Thereafter, he filed his complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County seeking compensatory and punitive damages from Dr. Walker for alleged libelous statements contained in Dr. Walker’s letter. Dr. Atkins was presented a copy of.-the letter, but the method, time or manner of receipt is not made clear from the record. After filing an answer, defendant moved for summary judgment. Defendant argues that the action was barred by R.C. 2305.25 and 2305.251. R.C. 2305.25 is an immunity statute and R.C. 2305.251 is a privilege statute. “R.C. 2305.25 reads as follows: “ ‘No member or employee of a utilization review committee or tissue committee of a hospital or of a community mental health center or of a utilization committee of a state or local society composed of doctors of medicine or doctors of osteopathic medicine and surgery or doctors of podiatric medicine or of a peer review or professional standards review committee of a state or local society composed of doctors of medicine, doctor”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 427 - Atkins v. Walker

2. ““In the case sub judice, Civ. R. 56(C) was used not to determine that, on the evidence, there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, but that plaintiffs proof would be barred by operation of law. We find that it is premature to make this decision and that it may not be made pursuant to a Civ. R. 56(C) proceeding. “Furthermore, R.C. 2305.251 specifically states that documents available from original sources are not unavailable for use in any civil action merely because they were presented during proceedings of a credentials committee. Defendant did not state in his motion for summary judgment that the letter was not available from original sources. He merely claimed that the letter was ‘privileged.’ On oral argument, defendant stated that he did not know how plaintiff obtained the letter. Defendant’s flat claim of privilege ignores the clear statutory language of R.C. 2305.251.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 3 Ohio App. 3d 427 - Atkins v. Walker