De Foe v. Duhl’s Empirical Analysis
286 F.2d 205 · 1961
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2005
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout · Glass v. David Pender Grocery Co. · Williams Paving Company v. Kreidl · Dinwiddie v. Hamilton · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Arrington
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Except at the request or with the consent of the patient, no duly licensed practitioner of any branch of the healing arts shall be required to testify ... respecting any information which he may have acquired in attending, examining, or treating the patient in a professional capacity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. Falls
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.