Newman v. Blom’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably State v. Marti (1980), State v. Tornquist (1963)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital · Hackman v. Beckwith · Soreide v. Vilas & Company · Davidson v. Vast · Smith v. Pine
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Medical records] are inadmissible against a patient or his privy in interest being within statutes making a position physician incompetent to testify regarding matters of which he acquires knowledge while acting in his professional capacity. The introduction of the records would obviously be an evasion of such statutes, for although the physician would not actually testify, yet the privileged matter sought to be barred would in fact be effectively placed in evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““No practicing * * * physician * * * or confidential clerk of any such person, who obtains such information by reason of his employment, * * * shall be allowed, in giving testimony, to disclose any confidential communication properly entrusted to him in his professional capacity, and necessary and proper to enable him to discharge the functions of his office according to the usual course of practice or discipline. Such prohibition shall not apply to cases where the person in whose favor the same is made waives the rights conferred * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““There is no theory upon "which both the plaintiff and the defendants were entitled to damages. * * * the jury found that appellant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the aeeident, and that appellee was free from negligence contributing thereto. * * * While the ruling on the motion to strike the counterclaim * * * was erroneous, it was, in view of the verdict of- the jury finding that the accident was the result of the negligence of the driver of appellant’s car, clearly without prejudice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Olson v. Truax
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.