Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 Utah 385 - Fredrickson v. MAW

Fredrickson v. MAW’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2015

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

501951196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wharton v. Warner · Moore v. Ivey · Losie v. Losie · Carruthers v. Phillips · Lefaive v. Asselin

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The better-reasoned cases announce a rule of law to the effect that in those cases which depend upon knowledge of the scientific effect of medicine, the results of surgery, or whether the attending physician exercised the ordinary care, skill and knowledge required of doctors in the community which he serves, must ordinarily be established by the testimony of physi cians and surgeons. There is, however, another well-recognized rule holding that when facts may be ascertained by the ordinary use of the senses of lay witnesses, it is not necessary that expert testimony be produced and relied upon.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The failure of a surgeon to remove a foreign object from the body of a patient following the use of that object during an operation constitutes one of those occasions where, by reason of the very nature of the omission, courts have applied res ipsa loquitur. It is a matter of common knowledge that due care is lacking if surgical instruments, sponges, or medical supplies are not removed before an incision is closed or a wound heals. Lack of direct evidence by an expert witness of failure to remove is not fatal to a patient’s case when there is evidence from which an inference to that effect may legitimately be drawn.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Whether a surgical operation was unskillfully or skillfully performed is a scientific question. If, however, a surgeon should lose the instrument with which he operates in the incision ..., it would seem as a matter of common sense that scientific opinion could throw little light on the subject.”
    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.