Marrese v. Interqual, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
748 F.2d 373 · 1984
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably Doe ex rel. Doe v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Fort Wayne (1986), St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital v. Agbor (1997)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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) · 15 U.S.C. § 26 (§ 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320C (§ 1151 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320C (§ 1152 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395B (§ 1803 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395X (§ 1861 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396A (§ 1902 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Singleton v. Wulff · Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Parker v. Brown
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“established simply by showing that some aspects of a defendant’s business have a relationship to interstate commerce. Rather the inquiry must be whether the defendant’s activity that has allegedly been “infected” by unlawful conduct can be shown “ ‘as a matter of practical economics’ to have a not insubstantial effect on the interstate commerce involved.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[slimilar sounding phrases often have different meanings when applied in different legal contexts. This is such a case.... [The elements required for a cause of action under section 1983 differ from the elements required for state action under the antitrust laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court concluded that (t)he State of Indiana has “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy” that hospital medical staffs are to form peer review committees and that such committees are to review the quality and necessity of the care provided patients, to evaluate the qualifications of staff members, and review the merits of any recommendation against a staff member. Ind.Code §§ 16-10-1-6.5, 34-4-12.6-1. As a necessary and reasonable consequence of this state mandated medical peer review process, hospital staff members must review the medical treatments, diagnostic procedures, and surgical procedures of competing staff members and, when required, recommend the revocation of staff privileges. Thus, the defendants’ conduct, as members of or consultants to [the hospital’s peer review committees], in reviewing Dr. Marrese’s surgical procedures and recommending that his staff privileges be revoked, satisfies the first element of the [state action] test.”
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.