Moore v. Proper’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited
25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Forbis v. Neal · State v. Bullard · Turner v. Duke University · Seisinger v. Siebel · McDougall v. Schanz
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(j) Medical malpractice .-Any complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider ... shall be dismissed unless: (1) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care and all medical records pertaining to the alleged negligence that are available to the plaintiff after reasonable inquiry have been reviewed by a person who is reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness under Rule 702 of the Rules of Evidence and who is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care[.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Rule 9(j) serves as a gatekeeper, enacted by the legislature, to prevent frivolous malpractice claims by requiring expert review before filing of the action.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Because Rule 9(j) requires certification at the time of filing that the necessary expert review has occurred, compliance or noncompliance with the Rule is determined at the time of filing. The Court of Appeals has held that when conducting this analysis, a court should look at "the facts and circumstances known or those which should have been known to the pleader" at the time of filing. We find this rule persuasive, as any reasonable belief must necessarily be based on the exercise of reasonable diligence under the circumstances. As a result, the Court of Appeals has correctly asserted that a complaint facially valid under Rule 9(j) may be dismissed if subsequent discovery establishes that the certification is not supported by the facts, at least to the extent that the exercise of reasonable diligence would have led the party to the understanding that its expectation was unreasonable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.