Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 S.W.3d 835 - Murphy v. Russell

Murphy v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 56 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))

Relationships

Relies on Earle v. Ratliff · Garland Community Hospital v. Rose · MacGregor Medical Ass'n v. Campbell · Gormley v. Stover · Miller Ex Rel. Miller v. HCA, INC.

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

  1. “[T]he Legislature envisioned that discovery and the ultimate determination of what issues are submitted to the factfin-der should not go forward unless at least one expert has examined the case and opined as to the applicable standard of care, that it was breached, and that there is a causal relationship between the failure to meet the standard of care and the injury, harm, or damages claimed. The fact that in the final analysis, expert testimony may not be necessary to support a verdict does not mean the claim is not a health care liability claim.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘[h]ealth care liability claim’ means a cause of action against a health care provider or physician for treatment, lack of treatment, or other claimed departure from accepted standards of medical care, or health care, or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care, which proximately results in injury to or death of a claimant, whether the claimant’s claim or cause of action sounds in tort or contract.’”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the proper treatment of such injuries and the training and supervision of occupational therapists to provide the required care is necessarily governed by an acceptable standard of medical care, health care, or safety, and expert testimony will be required to establish the appropriate standard of care. Because her claim is based upon an alleged departure from accepted standards of medical care, health care, or safety, Ponce’s suit against Columbia is a “health care liability claim.””
    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.