Barnhoff v. Aldridge’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Stephen J. Kozan v. Dr. Glenn E. Comstock (1959), Baysinger v. Hanser (1947)
6 federal appellate · 38 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 Hales v. Raines · Canaday v. United Railways Co. · 35 Cal. App. 182 - Marty v. Somers · Horowitz v. Bogart
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The improper performance by a physician or surgeon of the duties devolved and incumbent upon him and the services undertaken by him, whether same be said to be under a contractual relationship with the patient arising out of either an express or implied contract or consensual relationship, whereby the patient is injured in body and health, is malpractice, and any action for damages, regardless of the form thereof, based upon such improper act, comes within the inhibition of the two-year statute of limitation." (emphasis added)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"And in still other jurisdictions it has been recognized that an action for malpractice is neither a purely tortious nor a contractual action, but a hybrid, for which a specific limitation should be prescribed by statute, as has been done in some states. And such a statute applies to any of the causes of action therein specified regardless of the form of action, whether it sounds in contract or in tort. It is the general rule that limitation statutes relating to assault, assault and battery, malicious injury, and fraud have no application to actions for malpractice based on negligence of a physician or surgeon." 41 American Jurisprudence, page 232, section 122.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maercklein v. Smith““The sole question before the court is whether the complaint sets forth a cause of action for breach of contract or one for malpractice. If the latter, it is conceded that the defendant’s motion to dismiss should have been granted. “While, in the complaint now under consideration, neither lack of skill nor negligence is charged, the basis of the charge is ‘improper performance of the work to the personal injury of the plaintiff’ ”.”
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.