Oxtoby v. McGowan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 10 district · 151 state decisions

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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In our recital of the procedural background we have used the word 'jurisdiction’ because that was the term employed by the parties. The Act, however, does not take away the subject matter jurisdiction of a circuit court to hear and render judgments in cases involving claims which fall within the Act. '[T]his statute, which in essence requires that malpractice disputes be submitted to nonbinding arbitration’ creates 'a condition precedent to the institution of a court action. . . .’ Attorney General v. Johnson, 282 Md. 274, 283-84 , 385 A.2d 57, 63 , appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 805 , 99 S.Ct. 60 , 58 L.Ed.2d 97 (1978). But the General Assembly has forcefully expressed in § 3-2A-02 (a) its intent that this condition precedent be satisfied. ('An action or suit of that type may not be brought or pursued in any court of this State except in accordance with this subtitle.’) While an arbitration panel operating under the Act is not an administrative agency, see Johnson, supra, 282 Md. at 285 , 385 A.2d at 63 , the legislative mandate that the arbitration procedure under the Act be followed as a precondition to invoking the general jurisdiction of a court is analogous to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Where the General Assembly has provided a special form of remedy and has established a statutory procedure before an administrative agency for a special kind of case, a litigant must ordinarily pursue that form of remedy and not bypass the administrative official”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tranen v. Aziz · Ott v. Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc.

2. ““(a) Claims and actions to which subtitle applicable.—All claims, suits, and actions, including cross claims, third-party claims, and actions under Title 3 Subtitle 9 of this article, by a person against a health care provider for medical injury allegedly suffered by the person in which damages of more than $5,000 are sought are subject to and shall be governed by the provisions of this subtitle. An action or suit of that type may not be brought or pursued in any court of this State except in accordance with this subtitle. An action in which damages of $5,000 or less are sought is not subject to the provisions of this subtitle.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tranen v. Aziz · Adler v. Hyman

3. “[i]n Oxtoby , we conceived `injury' in the context of a progressive illness, ovarian cancer, in terms of `the effect on the recipient in the way of hurt or damage,' and noted that `a medical injury occurs . . . even though all of the resulting damage to the patient' has not yet occurred.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burnside v. Wong · Green v. North Arundel Hospital Association, Inc.