Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Ga. App. 201 - Hendrix v. Schrecengost

183 Ga. App. 201 - Hendrix v. Schrecengost’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2010

17 state decisions

801987199020002010decided

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 167 Ga. App. 278 - Wade v. Thomasville Orthopedic Clinic, Inc. · 174 Ga. App. 209 - Shved v. Daly · 165 Ga. App. 425 - Johnson v. Gamwell · 178 Ga. App. 608 - Gillis v. Palmer · 176 Ga. App. 895 - Bray v. Dixon

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

  1. “she was deterred from learning the truth of her condition by defendant’s knowing failure to inform her that she had undergone an incomplete hysterectomy. However, she has failed to show any inference that defendant knew the cervix or any part of it remained. At best, plaintiff has shown defendant failed to detect the remaining tissue. While this failure may be evidence of negligence, it is not evidence of fraud [that] would toll the statute of limitation. A patient must present evidence of a known failure to reveal negligence in order to show fraud. ... In the case at bar, there is absolutely nothing from which we can make any inference that the defendant doctor had any knowledge of improper conduct on his part or that he tried to cover up such conduct in any way. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Even if evidence of fraud exists, the statute of [ultimate repose] is not tolled when the plaintiff knew all facts necessary to [discover the] malpractice before the running of the [statute of repose]. [Cit.] In this case, the repeated recurrence of symptoms of medical complications prior to the running of the statute of [repose] should have put plaintiff on notice of possible negligent medical treatment....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`from which we can make any inference that (the defendant doctor) had any knowledge of improper conduct on his part or that he tried to cover up such conduct in any way.'”
    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.