State v. Nowlin’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 162 W. Va. 212 - State v. Sims (1978), 91 Wash. 2d 301 - State v. Wanrow (1978)
39 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.
Relationships
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · State v. Conner · State v. Monroe · State v. Hall
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Three elements must exist for the physician-patient privilege to arise under § 622.10: (1) the relationship of doctor-patient; (2) information acquired during this relationship and (3) the necessity and propriety of the information to enable the doctor to treat the patient skillfully in his professional capacity. These elements must exist for the privilege to apply whether the physician is a state employee or privately employed and whether the examination is by court order or arranged by the defendant privately.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The physician-patient privilege does not arise where on order of the court a defendant is examined to determine his mental or physical condition. [Authorities.] The cited cases distinguish between an examination of a defendant solely to ascertain his mental and physical condition as opposed to diagnosis and treatment. Only in the former situation is the privilege unavailable, in the latter situation the defendant still can invoke the privilege.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Cole““The felony-murder statute does not relieve the State of the burden of proving essential elements of first-degree murder. The elements alleged by defendant to be essential are not essential. The statute defines a distinct offense punishable as first-degree murder which does not require the state of mind necessary for a separate category of first-degree murder.” [ 244 N.W.2d at 605 ]”
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.