State v. Cofer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. ““Generally speaking, it may be said the statute contemplates that the patient may consent to his physician testifying and therefore no question of public policy is involved. It is elementary that communications made in professional confidence are not incompetent, and that if a third person hears them he may testify. The disqualification is imposed upon the physician only, and not for his benefit or for the benefit of the public, but merely is a privilege to the patient, which privilege, like many others, may be waived. (Insurance Co. v. Brubaker, 78 Kan. 146, 155 , 96 Pac. 62 , 130 Am. St. Rep. 356 , 18 LNS 362; Flack v. Brewster, 107 Kan. 63, 65, 66, 67, 190 Pac. 616 , and Chaffee v. Kaufman, 113 Kan. 254, 256 , 214 Pac. 618 .)” (pp. 89, 90.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Soden v. Gemberling