Collins v. Associated Pathologists, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 473 · 1988
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Street v. Jc Bradford & Company (1989), In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (1997)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Central District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he very nature of antitrust litigation encourages summary disposition of such cases when permissible.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Staff privileges reflect the hospital’s decision that a physician is qualified to practice in the facility, but do not in and of themselves confer employment. Employment as a pathologist at St. John’s was determined by the legal contract between St. John’s and [the exclusive contractor]. [Citation.] Although without concurrent employment by St. John’s as a pathologist these staff privileges may be of little or no value to Dr. Collins, the fact remains that the privileges were neither removed nor reduced.” Collins v. Associated Pathologists, Ltd. (7th Cir. 1988), 844 F.2d 473, 481 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he test for summary judgment is whether sufficient evidence exists in the pre-trial record to allow the non-moving party to survive a motion for directed verdict.”
3 later decisions 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.