Burton v. Tribble’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Ayers v. Morgan (1959), Fernandi v. Strully (1961)
17 federal appellate · 58 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 Schmit v. Esser · Field v. Gazette Publishing Co. · Gray v. McDermott · 105 Cal. App. 293 - Johnson v. Nolan · Groendal v. Westrate
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Appellee’s acts of leaving the ball of gauze in appellant’s abdominal cavity and his failure to apprise appellant thereof were such' fraudulent concealments and continuing acts of negligence as toll the statute of limitation until appellee performed his duty of removing the foreign substance or appellant learned or should have learned of its presence.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellee performed the operation upon appellant and knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have known, that the foreign substance was left remaining in her abdominal cavity. The information was thus known to appellee, was unknown to appellant, and the duty rested upon appellee to make known * * * all facts within his knowledge with reference to the injury. The cause of action alleged in appellant’s complaint grows out of a breach of duty which the law implies from the physician and surgeon’s employment in undertaking to perform the operation. It was a constant and daily obligation to use ordinary care and skill, and if by omission and negligence, he has left a foreign substance within the walls of the abdominal cavity at the operation, it behooved him to afford timely relief.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. Layton“"... if, in the exercise of ordinary care and skill, appellee knew that the foreign substance was left in appellant's abdominal cavity, it then and thereupon became his imperative duty to apprise appellant of this fact and not conceal it from her until the statute of limitation had attached."”
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.