Seisinger v. Siebel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 79 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] determination that a statute and court rule cannot be harmonized is but the first step in a separation of powers analysis.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duff v. Lee · HEFETZ VS. BEAVOR

2. “[B]eeause § 12-563 defines the elements of a cause of action, it is plainly substantive. Section 12-260k(A) is substantive in much the same sense. It “regulates rights,” [citation omitted] by modifying the common law to increase a plaintiffs burden of production with respect to a statutory element of the tort, departure from the standard of care. Before the enactment of § 12-2604(A), [a plaintiff] could satisfy that burden by presenting the testimony of [an expert witness], assuming he qualifies as an expert under Rule 702. After § 12-2604(A) became effective, the same evidence is not sufficient, as a matter of law, to avoid summary judgment. The statute thus did not merely alter court procedures, but rather changed the substantive law as to what a plaintiff must prove in medical malpractice actions, [citation omitted] Legg [v. Chopra ], 286 F.3d [286] at 290 [(6th Cir.2002)] (“State witness competency rules are often intimately intertwined with a state substantive rule. This is especially true with medical malpractice statutes, because expert testimony is usually required to establish the standard of care.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaufman v. Jesser

3. “2. During the year immediately preceding the occurrence giving rise to the lawsuit, devoted a majority of the person’s professional time to either or both of the following: (a) The active clinical practice of the same health profession as the defendant and, if the defendant is or claims to be a specialist, in the same specialty or claimed specialty. (b) The instruction of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program in the same health profession as the defendant and, if the defendant is or claims to be a specialist, in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program in the same specialty or claimed specialty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cornerstone Hospital of Southeast Arizona v. Ernest H. Blackburn