Richard A. Bolt & Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 874 F.2d 755 (11th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
Richard A. Bolt & Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A. v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 874 F.2d 755 (11th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle (gand, 2023-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Battle
N.D. Ga. · 2023 · confidence medium
Ctr., 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crosby v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta & Lowndes County
11th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Medical Center (Bolt II), 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crosby v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta
M.D. Ga. · 1995 · confidence medium
Medical Center, 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir. 1989) (Bolt II).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Trade Commission v. University Health, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh’g granted, 861 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc), reinstated, in part, 874 F.2d 755 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc), vacated and rev’d, 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1960 , 109 L.Ed.2d 322 (1990), despite our clear direction that the state-action discussion in that opinion "remains vacated and without precedential value," Bolt, 874 F.2d at 756 (emphasis added).) In our judgment, this argument is meritless.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Trade Commission v. University Health, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.), vacated, reh'g granted, 861 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc), reinstated, in part, 874 F.2d 755 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc), vacated and rev'd, 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1960 , 109 L.Ed.2d 322 (1990), despite our clear direction that the state-action discussion in that opinion "remains vacated and without precedential value," Bolt, 874 F.2d at 756 (emphasis added).) In our judgment, this argument is meritless.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Blank v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
M.D. Fla. · 1990 · confidence medium
Ctr., 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc) (portion of opinion not expressly reinstated by en banc court remains “vacated and without precedential value”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Medical Center, 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine
W.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Bolt v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 874 F.2d 755, 756 (11th Cir.1989) (hospital and medical staffs waived any immunity from antitrust liability where they formally withdrew any claim of immunity in oral argument before the en banc court). 62 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard A. BOLT and Richard A. Bolt, M.D., P.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HALIFAX HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
84-3256, 84-3603.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 16, 1989.
874 F.2d 755
Donald E. Christopher, Orlando, Fla., Clark Havighurst, Durham, N.C., Hal K. Litchford, Litchford, Christopher & Mil-brath, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for plaintiffs-appellants., Elizabeth R. Hilder, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for amicus F.T.C., William E. Loucks, Daytona Beach, Fla., for Volusia County Medical Soc., James E. Slater, Orlando, Fla., for Willis Stose, M.D., J. Charles Ingram, G.B., McVay Voght, Hannah, Marsee, Blik & Voght, Orlando, Fla., for Daytona, Humana, Boye, Marino., Clinton R. Batterton, David A. Donohoe, Washington, D.C., Harold C. Hubka, Day-tona Beach, Fla., for Halifax Hosp. Medical Center., Ronald L. Harrop, Dennis R. O’Connor, Gurney & Handley, P.A., Orlando, Fla., for Roberson and Smith M.D.’s., Adams & Hill, Janet W. Adams, Orlando, Fla., for Ormond Beach Hosp., Emmet J. Bondurant, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Michael B. Terry, Atlanta, Ga., for amicus Hosp. Authority of Clarke County.
Roney, Tjoflat, Hill, Fay, Vance, Kravitch, Johnson, Hatchett, Anderson, Clark, Edmondson, Cox, Tuttle.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

We granted rehearing en banc in this case, see Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 861 F.2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988), to consider whether the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs were exempt from federal antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 100 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988). A panel of this court had answered this question affirmatively, concluding that Florida’s regulatory scheme, which provided for probing judicial review of peer review board decisions regarding medical staff privileges, constituted “active state supervision” sufficient to invoke Parker’s state action exemption. See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273, 1282 (11th Cir.1988).

In oral argument before the en banc court, the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs formally withdrew any claim that they were immune from antitrust liability under the state action exemption. Thus, whether or not the defendants are entitled to immunity under Parker’s state action exemption, they now have clearly waived that immunity in this case. Since we granted rehearing solely to consider this issue, further consideration of the case by the en banc court is unnecessary.

The court therefore reinstates the panel opinion, see Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 851 F.2d 1273 (11th Cir.1988), with the exception of the opinion’s discussion of the state action exemption, see id. at 1279-84, which remains vacated and without precedential value. The case is thus remanded to the panel, which shall reconsider its decision in light of the hospitals’ and medical staffs’ waiver of immunity and the parties’ outstanding petition for rehearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.