130 Ill. App. 3d 140 - Horak v. Biris’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 176 Ill. 2d 1 - Advincula v. United Blood Services (1996), 48 Cal. 3d 583 - Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989)
16 federal appellate · 79 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 33 Ill. 2d 326 - Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital · 22 Ill. 2d 73 - Knierim v. Izzo · 20 Ill. 2d 406 - Dini v. Naiditch · Zipkin v. Freeman · 64 Ill. App. 3d 676 - Glass v. Burkett
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Citation.] The mishandling of this phenomenon, which generally results in sexual relations or involvement between the psychiatrist or therapist and the patient, has uniformly been considered as malpractice or gross negligence in other jurisdictions, whether the sexual relations were prescribed by the doctor as part of the therapy, or occurred outside the scope of treatment.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think that the very nature of the therapist-patient relationship *** gives rise to a clear duty on the therapist’s part to engage only in activity or conduct which is calculated to improve the patient’s mental or emotional well-being, and to refrain from any activity or conduct which carries with it a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of mental or emotional harm to the patient.” Horak v. Biris, 130 Ill. App. 3d 140, 145 , 474 N.E.2d 13, 17 (1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Here, both the plaintiff and his wife were patients of the defendant, apparently for the common purpose of rehabilitating their marital relationship. Thus, the treatment of each of the spouses would reasonably have an effect upon the other spouse and the prospects of improving the couple’s marriage. To this extent, any malpractice committed by the defendant in the treatment of plaintiffs wife would clearly have an impact upon the plaintiff as well.””
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.