Dietze v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1995
4 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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 Natanson v. Kline · Hunter v. Burroughs · Reed v. Church · Mitchell v. Robinson · Vann v. Harden
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a general proposition, a physician or surgeon may be held guilty of negligence in failing to take an X-ray as an aid in diagnosis or treatment if, under the evidence, it is shown that according to the tenets of the physician’s school of medicine, or the usual practice in his locality, the circumstances presented were such as to require the physician, in the exercise of the skill and care with which he was charged, to resort to an X-ray examination.” See 162 A.L.R. 1295 ; Dietze v. King, D.C., 184 F.Supp. 944 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The physician owes a duty to his patient to make reasonable disclosure of all significant facts under the circumstances of the then situation. This duty is, however, limited to those disclosures which a reasonable medical practitioner would make under the same or similar circumstances, and the failure to disclose in all instances does not necessarily suggest a neglect of duty.” 184 F.Supp. at 949 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bly v. Rhoads““ * * * negligent practice of a physician in the diagnosis of a patient can be established only by expert testimony, and if the proof leaves it equally probable that a bad result may have been due to a cause.for which the defendant was not responsible as to a cause for which he was responsible, the plaintiff cannot recover.” Dietze v. King, supra, and cases cited. 7”
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.