Cates v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds (1990), 229 Ill. 2d 393 - Wills v. Foster (2008)
4 federal appellate · 64 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Harris v. McRae · Eichel v. New York Central Railroad · Phillips v. Chesson · Sims ex rel. Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance · Capps v. Lynch
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* According to [the collateral source] rule a plaintiff's recovery may not be reduced because a source collateral to the defendant, such as "a beneficial society," the plaintiff's family or employer, or an insurance company, paid the plaintiff's expenses. Id . Rather, an injured plaintiff is entitled to recovery " '... for reasonable medical, hospital, or nursing services rendered him, whether these are rendered him gratuitously or paid for by his employer.' "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A divisible waiver could enable plaintiffs to elicit from their physicians factual details underlying their cases and then preclude these physicians from placing this information in a legally relevant context. When a patient dissolves the fiduciary relationship with his physician by disclosing or permitting disclosure of details of their consultations, he should not, in fairness, be allowed to prevent the physician from stating an opinion which might aid the trier of fact in assessing the merits of the patient's case. To hold otherwise would enable patients to use the privilege not defensively to protect their confidences but offensively to suppress the truth in litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When ... the patient breaks the fiduciary relationship with the physician by revealing, or permitting revelation of, the substance of the information transmitted to the physician, the patient has, in effect, determined it is no longer important that the confidences which the privilege protects continue to be protected. Having taken this position, the plaintiff may not silence the physician as to matters otherwise protected by the privilege.”
2 later decisions 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.