Iverson v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Catz v. Rubenstein (1986), 46 Ill. 2d 32 - Lipsey v. Michael Reese Hospital (1970)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Knapp v. United States · Di Carlo v. United States · 24 Cal. 2d 81 - Lawless v. Calaway · 6 Cal. 2d 302 - Huysman v. Kirsch · Waldman v. Rohrbaugh
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““After studying the various approaches taken by the courts, the recent trend of decisions to depart from the ‘general rule,’ the indefinite language of our statute, and our belief that justice is best served when claims are adjudicated on their merits, we conclude that the best rule is that the limitation period commences to run against a malpractice action from the time the act of malpractice with resulting injury is, or by reasonable diligence could be, discovered.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“" 28-01-18. Actions having two-year limitations. The following actions must be commenced within two years after the cause of action has accrued: . . . . . "3. An action for the recovery of damages resulting from malpractice, provided, however, that the limitation of an action against a physician or licensed hospital will not be extended beyond six years of the act or omission of alleged malpractice by a nondiscovery thereof unless discovery was prevented by the fraudulent conduct of the physician or licensed hospital.... "4. An action for injuries done to the person of another, when death ensues from such injuries, and the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the death of the party injured. "5...."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The objective of a statutory limitation on the time within which an action may be brought is, in malpractice cases, the protection of medical practitioners from the assertion of stale claims. We do not believe the legislature intended to limit patients asserting malpractice claims, who by the very nature of the treatment had no way of immediately ascertaining their injury, to the same overall period of time that is allowed for bringing other tort actions that are normally immediately ascertainable upon commission of the wrong. The protection of the medical profession from stale claims does not require such a harsh rule. The mischief the statute was intended to remedy was delay in the assertion of a legal right by one who had slumbered for the statutory period during which process was within his reach.””
2 later decisions 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.