Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 861 F.2d 1440 - Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital

Oltz v. St. Peter's Community Hospital’s Empirical Analysis

861 F.2d 1440 · 1988

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
8
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 11 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA (2002), Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc. (1991)

87 federal appellate · 11 district · 11 state decisions

95019881990200020102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation

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

  1. “The product market includes the pool of goods or services that enjoy reasonable interchangeability of use and cross-elasticity of demand.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Proving injury to competition in a rule of reason case almost uniformly requires a claimant to prove the relevant market and to show the effects of competition within that market.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) an agreement or conspiracy among two or more persons or distinct business entities; (2) by which the persons or entities intend to harm or restrain competition; and (3) which actually injures competition.”
    7 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.