Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 789 F.2d 278 - Cooper v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.

Cooper v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

789 F.2d 278 · 1986

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Oksanen v. Page Memorial Hospital (1991), Thompson Everett, Inc. v. National Cable Advertising, L.P. (1995)

19 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

170198619902000decided

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 Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Copeland v. United States · Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. · Weiss v. York Hospital

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

  1. “conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mere contacts and communications, or the mere opportunity to conspire, among antitrust defendants is insufficient evidence [of] an anticompetitive conspiracy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Section 1 of the Sherman Act clearly prohibits members of a medical-dental staff from agreeing with one another to coerce a hospital’s trustees to deny privileges to members of a competing profession for the purpose of furthering their economic self-interest. A jury could properly infer the existence of such an unlawful agreement from evidence of threats made to the trustees of mass resignations by the members of the medical-dental staff and the absence of demonstrably sound reasons relating to the quality of patient care underlying the defendants’ actions.”
    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.