In Re Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “(1)reduce excessive frequency and severity of health care liability claims through reasonable improvements and modification in the Texas insurance, tort, and medical practice systems; (2) decrease the cost of those claims and ensure that awards are rationally related to actual damages; (3) do so in a manner that will not unduly restrict a claimant’s rights any more than necessary to deal with the crisis; (4) make available to physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers protection against potential liability through the insurance mechanism at reasonably affordable rates; (5) make affordable medical and health care more accessible and available to the citizens of Texas; (6) make certain modification in the medical, insurance, and legal systems in order to determine whether or not there will be an effect on rates charged by insurers for medical professional liability insurance; and (7) make certain modifications to the liability laws as they relate to health care liability claims only and with an intention of the legislature to not extend or apply such modifications of liability laws to any other area of the Texas legal system or tort law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Huag

2. “The phrase notwithstanding any other provision of this section in subsection (u) references the reporting requirements imposed by the section and the discovery authorized by subsection (s). Nevertheless, subsection (u) limits the number of depositions allowed by subsection (s) to two; subsection (u) places this numerical limitation on the type of depositions permitted by subsection (s). The limitation is imposed in spite of the expert report requirements, and notwithstanding the lack of a numerical limitation on depositions in subsection (s). We conclude any oral depositions stayed under subsection (s) 13 are not authorized by subsection (u).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Huag

3. “(u) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, after a claim is filed all claimants, collectively, may take not more than two depositions before the expert report is served as required by Subsection (a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Huag