Lindemeier v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2004
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In Dowell v. Mossberg, 226 Or. 173 , 355 P.2d 624 , 359 P.2d 541 (1961), a malpractice case against a physician, plaintiff alleged a cause of action in contract in order to avoid the tort statute of limitations. We held that the implied contract between a patient and a physician is a matter of inducement and not the contractual relationship which gives rise to a cause of action of malpractice. Basically, a malpractice action sounds in tort. `Failure to exercise due care in the treatment of a patient is a breach of a legal duty which arises, not out of contract, but out of the relationship of physician and patient.' Dowell v. Mossberg, supra, at 190 , [ 355 P.2d 624 ,] 359 P.2d [541,] 543. "We followed the same rule in Bales for Food v. Poole, 246 Or. 253 , 424 P.2d 892 (1967), a malpractice action against an engineer-architect for failure to properly prepare the plans for a shopping center. The complaint there alleged an agreement between plaintiff and defendant, which agreement defendant breached by failing to exercise due care in drafting the plans and supervising the construction. Plaintiff contended that he alleged a cause of action in contract and that the six-year statute of limitations, ORS 12.080, applied. We held that the gravamen of plaintiff's cause of action sounded in tort and the two-year statute applied. The substance of the opinion in Bales is clearly that whether the action is in contract or in tort must be determined on the basis of the predominant characte”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[I]t is the gravamen or the predominant characteristic of the action, not plaintiff's election, which governs whether the action is one in contract or in tort." 272 Or. at 685 , 538 P.2d at 1267 .”
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.