Skip to main content
· 7/6/1983

Reading Hospital & Medical Center v. Chowdhury

Citations

  • 463 U.S. 1229
  • 103 S. Ct. 3569

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that because plaintiff was a California resident, California courts would be more accessible to him
  • holding that a “but for” damage model is “fatally deficient” where it provides “no basis for the Court to determine without speculation the amount of damage, if any, caused by any of the particular actions of the defendants”
  • jurisdiction proper in California over Arizona doctor who practiced near California border and advertised in California
  • “A predominant market share may merely be the result of regulation____”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.