Campbell v. St. Mary's Hospital

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that actions taken under color of state law that deprive a person of a protected interest violate due process
• holding state law immunity applicable where plaintiff’s “unsubstantiated speculation as to the reasons for the revocation of his surgical privileges” failed to meet the objective standard required to prove malice
• finding summary judgment appropriate as plaintiff's broad allegations of malice amounted to \unsubstantiated speculation as to the reasons for the revocation of his surgical privileges\
• affirming board’s decision when physician failed to use administrative appeal to challenge the board’s decision to rescind his license
• rejecting claims of malice premised on “unsubstantiated speculation as to the reasons for the revocation of [a doctor’s] surgical privileges”
• finding summary judgment appropriate as plaintiffs broad allegations of malice amounted to “unsubstantiated speculation as to the reasons for the revocation of his surgical privileges”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).