Manion v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
986 F.2d 1036 · 1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital (2005), Bryan
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 11101 (Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 11111 · 42 U.S.C. § 11112
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Abney v. United States · Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not restrict the rights of physicians who are disciplined to bring private causes of action for injunctive or declaratory relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“shall not be liable in damages under any law of the United States or of any State (or political subdivision thereof)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) A member of a professional review committee, a witness before a professional review committee, or any person who files a complaint or otherwise participates in the professional review process shall be immune from suit in any civil or criminal action, including antitrust actions, brought by a physician who is the subject of the review by such professional review committee, if such member made a reasonable effort to obtain the facts of the matter as to which he acted, acted in the reasonable belief that the action taken by him was warranted by the facts, and otherwise acted in good faith within the scope of such professional review committee process and if such witness or participant acted in good faith within the scope of such professional review committee process. (2) The governing board, the individual members of such board, and the entity which has established a peer review committee pursuant to section 12-36.5-104 shall be immune from suit for any damages in a civil or criminal action, including antitrust actions, brought by a physician who is the subject of any action taken by such board or members if such board or its members, acting as individuals, act in good faith. Good faith shall include reliance upon the recommendations of the review committee, but good faith shall not be presumed if the board or a member has knowledge concerning the review in question which would cause such reliance to be unwarranted. Good faith shall also require that the board otherwise acte”
2 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.