Iterman v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc. (1980), 151 W. Va. 977 - Hundley v. Martinez (1967)
63 state decisions — followed in 10 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 State v. Williams · Wabash Railroad v. Kelley · Wabash Railroad v. Reynolds
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a licensed physician may not accept directions and instructions in diagnosing and treating ailments from a corporation or an individual who is not a licensed practitioner.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“. . The right to practice medicine is, in this state, controlled by statute. It is held, in some jurisdictions that corporations may legally engage in the practice of medicine and surgery. The question involves the consideration and construction of local statutes. Under the statutes of this state it has never been doubted that it is unlawful for a corporation to practice medicine, and any contract made in the name of a corporation, binding it to diagnose or treat ailments or diseases, is not only ultra vires, but unlawful and against public policy. The right to practice medicine and surgery under a license by the state is a personal privilege. It cannot be delegated, and a corporation, or other unlicensed person, may not engage in the practice of medicine by employing one who is licensed to do the things which constitute practicing the profession. . . . “. . . The appellee came to the hospital, talked to Dr. Iterman, and was treated by him with the assistance of two other doctors. Nothing was said as to whether the services were to be rendered by the doctor or by the corporation. The doctor was a stockholder and director in the corporation. Are these facts such as .to necessarily imply a contract by- which the corporation agreed to diagnose and treat the appellee’s ailments? The facts justify, the conclusion that the corporation charged and collected for the use of its hospital facilities and equipment, and for furnishing the services of licensed and qualified physicians and ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellants complain because a doctor was permitted to give his opinion as to what would have been the proper method of diagnosis of appellee’s injury, without showing that he was acquainted with the practice in the city of New Castle at the time of appellee’s injury. The doctor had testified to his experience and general knowledge of surgical methods; that he practiced in the city of Richmond, and that he had practiced in many towns in Indiana, and that he had once practiced in the hospital at New Castle; that he knew the doctors there; and that he was familiar with the methods used by physicians and surgeons generally in communities similar to New Castle. This was sufficient to qualify him. The same doctor was permitted to testify that, from an examination of the injuries, he was of the opinion that fractures existed at the time appellee was treated by the appellant It-eraran. No reason is seen why this evidence was not competent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weinstock v. Ott
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.