30 Colo. App. 144 - Caro v. Bumpus’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 26 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Plaintiffs' principal contention of error is that the testimony of the doctors of medicine was admissible under an exception to the general rule which exception permits a physician of one school of medicine to testify in a malpractice action against a physician of another school where the method of treatment of the school of the defendant is the same as that of the witness. "Our Supreme Court has not had occasion to discuss or consider this exception. It appears from the cases collected in the annotation at 85 A.L.R.2d 1022 that the exception is recognized in several jurisdictions. These courts require proof by competent evidence that the methods of treatment are the same for the defendant's school of medicine and the expert witness' school of medicine. This prerequisite foundation has been held established where the defendant himself admits that the treatment would be the same in both schools. See, e.g., Bellheimer v. Rerucha , 124 Neb. 399 , 246 N.W. 867 . In other cases, the foundation was established by a witness who was an expert in both schools of practice. See, e.g., Hart v. Van Zandt , 399 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.). In other cases, the foundation was established by the testimony of a practitioner of defendant's own school. See, e.g., Welch v. Shaver , 351 S.W.2d 588 (Tex.Civ.App.). "In the present case, the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain any admission from defendant on cross-examination that the methods of treatment of osteopaths and doctors of medic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 474 So. 2d 1078 - Wozny v. Godsil

2. ““For a patient’s consent to be effective, whether expressed or implied, the physician must have informed that patient as to the nature of the ailment, the nature of the operation, the alternative treatment available, if any, and the substantial risks if any, involved in undergoing the operation or the alternative treatment, to the extent that a reasonable medical practitioner would have done under the same or similar circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bloskas v. Murray