Confirm favorite deletion?
Health Law Keyed to Furrow
In the Matter of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Before the merger, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. (ENH) (Defendant) owned Evanston Hospital and Glenbrook Hospital, both in Cook County, Ill. In January 2000, Defendant acquired Highland Park, the nearest hospital to the north. There are other hospitals in the area, including nine facilities that are closer to Evanston, Glenbrook, or Highland Park than they are to each other, but there are no other hospitals within the triangle formed by the three ENH (Defendant) hospitals. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (Plaintiff) filed a complaint in February 2004, claiming that Defendant's merger with Highland Park caused less competition and higher prices for insurers and health care consumers for general acute-care inpatient services sold to managed care organizations in the relevant geographic market. In October 2005, an administrative law judge found that Defendant exercised its enhanced power to obtain price increases considerably above its premerger prices and considerably larger than price increases obtained by other comparison hospitals. Defendant was ordered to divest of Highland Park.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.