Sherwood v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center (2011), Harris v. State, Dept. of Health (1992)
1 district · 45 state decisions
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 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Canterbury v. Spence · Wilkinson v. Vesey · Nickell v. Gonzalez · 100 Wash. 2d 26 - Smith v. Shannon
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] valid consent must be preceded by the physician disclosing those pertinent facts to the patient so that he or she is sufficiently aware of the need for, the nature of, and the significant risks ordinarily involved in the treatment to be provided in order that the giving or withholding of consent be a reasonably informed decision. The requisite pertinent facts to be disclosed to the patient are those which would be given by a like physician of good standing practicing in the same community.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a reasonable person would have chosen no treatment or a different course of treatment had he or she been adequately informed by the physician.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Foster v. Traul · Shabinaw v. Brown“SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT. Consent for the furnishing of hospital, medical, dental or surgical care, treatment or procedures shall be valid in all respects if the person giving it is sufficiently aware of pertinent facts respecting the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily attendant upon such a patient receiving such care, as to permit the giving or withholding of such consent to be a reasonably informed decision. Any such consent shall be deemed valid and so informed if the physician or dentist to whom it is given or by whom it is secured has made such disclosures and given such advice respecting pertinent facts and considerations as would ordinarily be made and given under the same or similar circumstances, by a like physician or dentist of good standing practicing in the same community. As used in this section, the term “in the same community” refers to that geographical area ordinarily served by the licensed general hospital at or nearest to which such consent is given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.