Legal Opinion
Schweizer v. Riverside Methodist Hospitals
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided January 16, 1996No. 95APE03-277PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McCormac, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, Frederick Schweizer, M.D., filed a verified amended complaint against Riverside Methodist Hospitals, Grant E. Schmidt, M.D., Steven R. Williams, M.D., Riverside Infertility Center, and Moon H. Kim, M.D., alleging that these defendants had violated Ohio’s antitrust statutes, known as the Valentine Act, by preventing plaintiff from practicing in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) and gamete intrafallopian tube transfer (“GIFT”) at Riverside Methodist Hospitals. Plaintiff also asserted claims under the Corrupt Activities Act and for private inurement, which were…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
- McConnell v. Hunt Sports EnterprisesOhio Court of Appeals · 1999
- Helman v. Epl Prolong, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Federated Management Co. v. Coopers & LybrandOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. City of YoungstownOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.