Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jordan v. Group Health Ass'ngreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Group Health Ass’n v. Moor, 24 F. Supp. 445, 446 (D.D.C. 1938) (actions of nonprofit association which contracts with licensed physicians to provide medical treatment to its members in no way commercialize medicine and are not the practice of medicine), aff’d, 107 F.2d 239 (D.C. 1997See, e.g., Group Health Ass'n v. Moor, 24 F.Supp. 445, 446 (D.D.C.1938) (actions of nonprofit association which contracts with licensed physicians to provide medical treatment to its members in no way commercializes medicine and is not the practice of medicine), aff'd, 107 F.2d 239 (D.C.Cir.1939); People ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Rush v. City of St. Petersburggreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Rush, 205 So. 2d 11 ; Weiss, 254 Kan. 728 , 869 P.2d 606 ; John H. 1997See, e.g., Rush, 205 So.2d 11 ; Weiss, 254 Kan. 728 , 869 P.2d 606 ; John H. | 2 | 2 |
Group Health Ass'n v. Moorgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Group Health Ass’n v. Moor, 24 F. Supp. 445, 446 (D.D.C. 1938) (actions of nonprofit association which contracts with licensed physicians to provide medical treatment to its members in no way commercialize medicine and are not the practice of medicine), aff’d, 107 F.2d 239 (D.C. 1997See, e.g., Group Health Ass'n v. Moor, 24 F.Supp. 445, 446 (D.D.C.1938) (actions of nonprofit association which contracts with licensed physicians to provide medical treatment to its members in no way commercializes medicine and is not the practice of medicine), aff'd, 107 F.2d 239 (D.C.Cir.1939); People ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Glasco Electric Co. v. Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence1997See Glaseo Electric Co. v. Department of Revenue, 87 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. United Medical Service, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Kerner v. United Medical Service, Inc. , 362 Ill. 442 (1936). 2002Kerner v. United Medical Service, Inc., 362 Ill. 442 (1936). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Berlin v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
green
2 sentences2002We held that this narrow exception to the application of the corporate practice doctrine was supported by the fact that numerous statutes have been enacted by the General Assembly which “clearly authorize, and at times mandate, licensed hospital corporations to provide medical services” and that the “authority to employ duly-licensed physicians for that purpose is reasonably implied from these legislative enactments.” Berlin , 179 Ill. 2d at 17 . 2002We held that this narrow exception to the application of the corporate practice doctrine was supported by the fact that numerous statutes have been enacted by the General Assembly which “clearly authorize, and at times mandate, licensed hospital corporations to provide medical services” and that the “authority to employ duly-licensed physicians for that purpose is reasonably implied from these legislative enactments.” Berlin, 179 Ill. 2d at 17 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Winberry v. Hallihan
green
2 sentences1997In Winberry v. Hallihan, 361 Ill. 121 (1935), the plaintiff corporation operated a dental office in which it employed only licensed dentists. 1997In Winberry v. Hallihan, 361 Ill. 121 , 197 N.E. 552 (1935), the plaintiff corporation operated a dental office in which it employed only licensed dentists. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Dr. Allison, Dentist, Inc. v. Allison
green
2 sentences1997Application of Doctrine in Illinois This court first encountered the corporate practice doctrine in Dr. Allison, Dentist, Inc. v. Allison, 360 Ill. 638 (1935). 1997Application of Doctrine in Illinois This court first encountered the corporate practice doctrine in Dr. Allison, Dentist, Inc. v. Allison, 360 Ill. 638 , 196 N.E. 799 (1935). | 2 | 1997–1997 |
St. Francis Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Weiss
green
2 sentences1997See, e.g., Rush, 205 So. 2d 11 ; Weiss, 254 Kan. 728 , 869 P.2d 606 ; John H. 1997See, e.g., Rush, 205 So. 2d 11 ; Weiss, 254 Kan. 728 , 869 P.2d 606 ; John H. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State ex inf. SAGER v. Lewin
neutral
1 sentence1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Roan
green
1 sentence1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner
green
2 sentences1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). 1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State Electro-Medical Institute v. State
green
2 sentences1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). 1997Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149 , 106 S.W. 581 (1907) (Missouri Court of Appeals found that the doctrine does not inhibit a private hospital’s ability to incorporate to furnish medical services and provide treatment through licensed physicians because in so doing a hospital is not practicing medicine); State Electro-Medical Institute v. State, 74 Neb. 40 , 103 N.W. 1078 (1905); State Electro-Medical Institute v. Platner, 74 Neb. 23 , 103 N.W. 1079 (1905) (Nebraska Supreme Court explained that a corporation’s making a contract with a physician is not practicing medicine). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.