Rayfield v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis
253 F.2d 209 · 1958
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Handelsman (1962), United States v. Price (1961)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 6 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · United States v. Standard Oil Co. · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Williams v. United States · United States v. Gilman
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It therefore appears that the majority of the cases hold that where hospital and medical services are furnished gratuitously to the injured party, he can recover the value of those services from the tort feasor. This seems to be the modern rule. Here also it might well be considered that medical and hospital services supplied by the Government to these members of the United States Navy were part of the compensation to them for services rendered, and therefore that by their service in the Navy they had paid for these. If, by their services, the appellants paid for the medical and hospital expenses, certainly the value of these are proper items for the jury to consider in arriving at the amount of damages to be paid by the appellee.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Government has no cause of action against the defendant for the value of hospital and medical services rendered the plaintiff. United States v. Standard Oil Company, 332 U.S. 301 , 67 S.Ct. 1604 , 91 L.Ed. 2067 , and United States v. Gilman, 347 U.S. 507 , 74 S.Ct. 695 , 98 L.Ed. 898 . With the Government precluded from recovering of the tort feasor, the plaintiff is the only party who may recover under any theory. We think, therefore, that defendant should not be able to escape liability for the medical and hospital expenses incurred by his negligence." (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision 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.