Nolan v. Dillon’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Bohnert v. State (1988), Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass'n (1975)
4 federal appellate · 10 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Davis v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. · Sanzari v. Rosenfeld · Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co. · State v. Housekeeper
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One is where the evidence is uncontradicted and the witness has heard or read it. In such a case he is asked to express an opinion predicated upon the assumption that the evidence thus known to him is true. The other way is to state to the witness such facts as are essential to the formation of a fair and intelligent opinion, ask him to assume the truth of the facts so stated, and to express an opinion upon them.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he package insert ... does not standing alone establish a standard of care, but rather, prima facie proof of proper use....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rules of law applicable in this State to cases of alleged medical malpractice, . . . are well established. There is a presumption that the doctor has performed his medical duties with the requisite care and skill. . . . The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show both a lack of the requisite skill or care on the part of the doctor and that such want of skill or care was a direct cause of the injury; and if proof of either of these elements is wanting the case is not a proper one for submission to the jury. . . . The rule as to the degree of skill required is stated in Dashiell v. Griffith, 84 Md. 363, 380 , 35 A. 1094 [1896]: ‘* *- * the amount of care, skill and diligence required is not the highest or greatest, but only such as is ordinarily exercised by others in the profession generally.’ This rule has since been followed consistently. . . . “It is well established by the case law in this State that the mere fact that an unsuccessful result follows medical treatment is not of itself evidence of negligence. . . . Nor does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply. . . .””
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.