Mary Sheets v. Richard G. Burman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 11 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Usually, there must be some active effort on the part of the one to be guilty of concealment but where a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists, such as physician-patient, there exists a duty to disclose material information between the parties and a failure to do so results in concealment. * * * [W]here the duty to inform exists by reason of a confidential relationship, when that relationship is terminated the duty to inform is also terminated; concealment then ceases to exist. After the relationship of physician and patient is terminated the patient has full opportunity for discovery and no longer is there a reliance by the patient nor a corresponding duty of the physician to advise or inform. The statute of limitations is no longer tolled by any fraudulent concealment and begins to run."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 164 Ind. App. 618 - Toth v. Lenk · 333 So. 2d 25 - Nardone v. Reynolds

2. ““In order for the court to issue a summary judgment under Rule 56, there must be no disputed questions of fact or conflicting inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts which, if settled against the moving party, would allow the plaintiff to recover. Stanley v. Guy Scroggins Construction Co., 5 Cir., 1961, 297 F. 2d 374 ; Braniff v. Jackson Ave. Gretna Ferry, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 280 F. 2d 523 . A claim barred by the applicable statute of limitations may be properly disposed of by summary judgment procedure. Ayers v. Davidson, 5 Cir., 1960, 285 F. 2d 137 . If, however, there is a disputed factual issue as to whether the suit was timely brought the plaintiff must be allowed to present evidence on this point. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hudson, 5 Cir., 1963, 314 F. 2d 776 .” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 617 - Meier v. Combs

3. ““In the case before us there is a dispute as to when the doctor-patient relationship ended. The defendant contends that it was terminated, at the latest in 1950, when he moved to Louisiana. Mrs. Sheets urges that it continued to exist until 1954, when Dr. Burman made an examination of her. There are conflicting inferences which can be drawn from the admitted facts that Dr. Burman left Indiana for one year, but then examined Mrs. Sheets at least once on his return.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 617 - Meier v. Combs