Della Fletcher v. Frank M. Hand’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.2d 549 · 1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1986
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 Conley v. Gibson · Fauver v. Bell · Hanna v. Fletcher · Francis O. Day Co. v. Shapiro · Purchase v. Seelye
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellee’s theory in tendering the release as a complete defense can be articulated in this wise: Virginia follows the rule ‘that where one has received a personal injury as a result of the negligence of another and pursues due care in the selection of a physician or surgeon to treat the injuries and they are aggravated by the negligent treatment of such physician or surgeon, the person causing the original injury is liable for the resulting damage to the full extent.’ Fauver v. Bell, 192 Va. 518 , 65 S. E. 2d 575, 578 (1951). It is equally well settled that ‘th'e release of one joint tort-feasor releases the other jointly liable for the same wrong or injury.’ Lackey v. Brooks, 204 Va. 428 , 132 S. E. 2d 461, 464 (1963). To the extent that the original tort-feasor is accountable for the damage caused by medical negligence in the treatment of the injuries caused by him, he stands in the relationship of a joint tort-feasor to the offending physician; and a release to the former discharges the latter. Translated into the terms of this case, if the daughter’s liability extended to the hip fracture, it must be taken to have included aggravating damage caused by negligent medical treatment of that fracture; and a release of the daughter operated to extinguish appellee’s liability for any damage for which the daughter could have been made to respond. “The case of Corbett v. Clarke, upon which both parties rely, is the Virginia case nearest on its facts to this, and appears to b’e t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Powell v. Troland““Unlike the Virginia court in Corbett , we see no need to send this case back for a determination of whether the knee injury and the hip fracture were so causally related as to render appellant’s daughter liable for the damages caused by medical negligence in the treatment of the latter. The record made at the hearing establishes an affirmative assertion by appellant herself of such a connection, made under circumstances which preclude a denial of that connection now. She clearly claimed such a relationship in her Virginia suit against her daughter, and her release of that claim is surely as broad as the claim itself. The hip fracture may or may not have been, in fact or in law, a foreseeable consequence of the daughter’s initial neglect to which the daughter’s liability extended. But appellant has so represented it in her Virginia suit, and the release settling that suit must be construed in the light of that representation.” 358 F. 2d at 552-53 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Powell v. Troland
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.