Mitchell v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2006 · most notably 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant (1972), Gray v. Grunnagle (1966)
32 state decisions — followed in 18 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
Relies on Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital · 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Hunt v. Bradshaw · Mohr v. Williams · Steele v. Woods
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the particular circumstances of this record, considering the nature of Mitchell’s illness and this rather new and radical procedure with its rather high incidence of serious and permanent injuries not connected with the illness, the doctors owed their patient in possession of his faculties the duty to inform him generally of the possible serious collateral hazards; and in the detailed circumstances there was a submissible fact issue of whether the doctors were negligent in failing to inform him of the dangers of shock therapy.” (p. 19.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Natanson v. Kline““ * * * The proper solution of this problem, in the opinion of the author, is to recognize that the doctor owes a duty to his patient to make reasonable disclosure of all significant facts, i. e., the nature of the infirmity (so far as reasonably possible), the nature of the operation and some of the more probable consequences and difficulties inherent in the proposed operation. It may be said that a doctor who fails to perform this duty is guilty of malpractice. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. Brumlop““A physician violates his duty to his patient and subjects himself to liability if he withholds any facts which are necessary to form the basis of an intelligent consent by the patient to the proposed treatment. 'Likewise the physician may not minimize the known dangers of a procedure or operation in order to induce his patient’s consent. * $ *»”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. Brumlop
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.