151 W. Va. 977 - Hundley v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently January 2009 · most notably 111 Ill. 2d 229 - Purtill v. Hess (1986), Wilkinson v. Harrington (1968)
3 federal appellate · 90 state decisions — followed in 16 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 149 W. Va. 166 - Roberts Ex Rel. Roberts v. Gale · 149 W. Va. 783 - Morgan v. Grace Hospital, Inc. · Carbone v. Warburton · Iterman v. Baker · 136 Cal. App. 2d 247 - Gist v. French
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a medical malpractice case the statute of limitations begins to run at the time the injury is inflicted, or, in the event the physician fraudulently conceals from the plaintiff the facts showing negligence, when the fraud is penetrated and the injury is discovered or when by the exercise of reasonable diligence it should have been discovered.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'expected to possess the same degree of medical knowledge as ... their urban counterparts.' ” 176 W.Va. at 471 , 345 S.E.2d at 566 (quoting Hundley, 151 W.Va. 977 [, 990], 158 S.E.2d 159 [167]). .We observed in Paintiff that the Court had”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where, in a civil action for damages against a private hospital and an individual, the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with a surgical operation performed upon her, a surgeon and other persons employed by the defendants negligently failed to remove from the plaintiff’s abdomen a sponge placed therein in connection with the surgical operation, the period of the applicable statute of limitations does not commence to run against the plaintiffs cause of action until she learns of, or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have learned of, the presence of the sponge in her abdomen.”
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.