McKay v. State Board’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Jaffe v. State Department of Health (1949), Levinson v. Connecticut Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1989)
34 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Sapero v. State Board of Medical Examiners · Jackson v. Burnham · White v. Andrew · Dilliard v. State Board of Medical Examiners · Ramsay v. Shelton
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no evidence that the drugs prescribed by McKay were not prescribed in good faith. No doubt the amount prescribed and the frequency of prescription might be such that in and of itself it would indicate to one skilled in their proper use that one could not possess ordinary skill as a physician and in good faith so frequently prescribe such quantities. But, as heretofore pointed out, the law under which the board acted, contemplates a review of the board’s action by a court presumably not expert in medical matters, with authority in the court to determine whether the board regularly pursued its authority or abused its discretion. Without testimony by an expert the court cannot determine the limits of proper treatment in good faith of one possessing ordinary skill, nor can it assume that the board members out of their own individual knowledge and skill correctly fixed the limits within which one might prescribe in these particular cases and be within the bounds of ordinary care and skill so that good faith might be presumed, and beyond which good faith and ordinary skill could not both be successfully asserted. Such matters being only within the knowledge of experts must be shown by testimony of experts appearing in the record. .... It does not appear in the evidence that such treatment for a patient in her condition was not proper, judged by sound and recognized medical standards. The board says that in its opinion it was not, but until there was competent evidence to s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]mmoral, unprofessional, or dishonorable conduct,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.