Arizona & New Mexico Railway Co. v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
235 U.S. 669 · 1915
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently July 1994 · most notably United States v. Hvoslef (1915), State v. Thomas (1954)
13 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedArizona & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Clark (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Stone v. State of South Carolina · Railroad Company v. Koontz Railroad Company · Hunt v. Blackburn · Steamship Co. v. Tugman · Railroad Company v. Mississippi
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * The express object (of the statute) is to exclude the physician’s testimony, at the patient’s option, respecting knowledge gained at the bedside, in view of the very delicate and confidential nature of the relation between the parties. * * Arizona Eastern R. Co. v. Matthews, 20 Ariz. 282 , 180 P. 159, 164 , 7 A.L.R. 1149 , quoting from Arizona & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 235 U.S. 669 , 35 S.Ct. 210 , 59 L.Ed. 415 . (Emphasis supplied)”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““6. A physician or surgeon can not be examined, without the consent of his patient, as to any communication made by his patient with reference to any physical or supposed physical disease or any knowledge obtained by personal examination of such patient. If a person offer himself as a witness and voluntarily testify with reference to such communication, that is to be deemed a consent to the examination of such attorney, physician or surgeon.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““contemplates that the patient may testify with reference to what is communicated by him to the physician, and in that event only it permits the physician (o testify without the patient’s consent. * * * The act gives him the option of excluding the physician’s evidence entirely by himself refraining from testifying voluntarily as to tliat respecting which alone their knowledge is equal, namely, what the patient told the physician with reference to the ailment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.