Wolfe v. Virusky’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1994
1 federal appellate · 1 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 Stephen J. Kozan v. Dr. Glenn E. Comstock · Robins v. Finestone · Brown v. Brown · Commonwealth Investment Co. v. Frye · 114 Ga. App. 424 - Wellston Co. v. Sam N. Hodges, Jr. & Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under Georgia law, mere failure of the patient to discover the existing condition or to be aware of his cause of action does not toll the statute. 3 [Citations omitted]. A recognized exception is where because of defendant’s moral fraud plaintiff does not learn of the cause of action within the statutory time. Such fraud tolls the statute. [Citations omitted]. Plaintiff has alleged as much but defendant argues that although the fraud exception may have been initially applicable as soon as the patient-physician relationship terminated the patient was no longer subjected to the doctor’s influence and that the statute began to run notwithstanding the fact that the patient did not know or could not have been expected to know of the fraud. “In support of this proposition defendant cites Ostojic v. Brueckmann, 405 F.2d 302 . There the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit so interpreted the law of Indiana. I do not find other support for this proposition which would theoretically permit a physician to conceal his mistake or fault by explaining to the patient that certain undesirable symptoms could be expected to continue in excess of two years and then by discharging the patient from his care cause the statute to begin running. A patient, accepting the explanation, might then live with his condition for a period beyond the statute and be barred from instituting a malpractice action upon subsequently learning of the fraud. Under Georgia law, in order for fraud to toll the statut”
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.