2 Ariz. App. 358 - Shetter v. Rochelle’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant (1972), Canterbury v. Spence (1972)
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 74 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital · Natanson v. Kline · 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Natanson v. Kline · Reed v. Real Detective Publishing Co.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] consent to a surgical procedure is effectual if the consentor understands substantially the nature of the surgical procedure attempted and the probable results of the operation.” Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App. at 370 , 409 P.2d at 86 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““While this court does not believe that a label placed upon a cause of action has any great significance, it does believe that theories of liability still have substance, and that the instant case particularly points up that substance. In order to make one man liable for another’s injury, there must be some valid reason for so doing. This reason, or theory of liability, may very well determine what injury has resulted from the wrong committed. A person should be liable for no more than the injury caused by his wrong.” Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App. 358, 366 , 409 P.2d 74, 82 (1965). Modified for other reasons 2 Ariz.App. 607 , 411 P.2d 45 (1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The general rule seems to have become well established that, before a physician or surgeon may perform an operation upon a patient, he must obtain the consent either of the patient, if competent to give it, or of someone legally authorized to give it for him, unless immediate operation is necessary to save the patient’s life or health, although under exceptional circumstances the consent may be regarded as having been impliedly given. (The action for operating without consent seems usually to be regarded as one for assault or trespass, rather than for negligence).””
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.