Whiddon v. Spivey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he limitations of Code Section 9-3-71 [the two-year general medical-malpractice statute of limitation] shall not apply where a foreign object has been left in a patient’s body, but in such a case an action shall be brought within one year after the negligent or wrongful act or omission is discovered. For the purposes of this Code section, the term “foreign object” shall not include a chemical compound, fixation device, or prosthetic aid or device.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spivey v. Whiddon

2. “OCGA § 9-3-71 simply does not apply to the negligence contemplated by OCGA § 9-3-72. . . . [I]n a foreign object claim, the patient has one year following discovery of the foreign object to bring his complaint, no matter whether the date of discovery is within or beyond the limitation period provided by OCGA § 9-3-71. [Ringewald at 303 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spivey v. Whiddon

3. “in the case sub judice, plaintiff’s claim is barred if it is deemed a “foreign object” claim even though the action was filed within two years of the second surgical procedure in which the screw, but not the washer, was removed. . . . [Whiddon, supra, 194 Ga. App. at 589 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spivey v. Whiddon