Powell v. Risser’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Menarde v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. (1954), Smith v. Yohe (1963)
14 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 Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co. · Mudano v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co. · Monahan v. Seeds & Durham · Knox v. Simmerman · Hodgson v. Bigelow
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is argued . . . that a jury of laymen under the present facts could find negligence in the same manner as in any other tort action. It is urged that a lay jury might find that plaintiff's jaw was found to have been broken, and from this fact might conclude that defendant had used unwarranted force and was therefore negligent. We disagree with such doctrine. . . . Negligence may not be inferred by laymen merely because the jaw was found to have been broken. A jaw could be broken even though there was no lack of care or skill by the dentist. Expert testimony is necessary to establish negligent practice in any profession. . . . As plaintiff failed to offer any expert witness to establish the measure of professional skill required of a dentist in extracting a tooth, she did not meet the burden of establishing, by the weight of the evidence, that defendant failed to treat her with reasonable and ordinary professional skill. . . . In all such malpractice cases this Court has uniformly applied the above principles:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson v. Wirts“It has been uniformly held that expert testimony is necessary to establish negligent practice in any profession: . . . In the instant case the plaintiff failed to show by any expert testimony just what Dr. Risser should have done or refrained from doing. . . . Since, to make out a case, the plaintiff must show by expert testimony that there was a deviation from proper practices in the administration of the wet packs, and since he failed to do so, the doctrine of exclusive control is not in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson v. Wirts“The duties imposed by law on the defendant physicians are to employ such reasonable skill and diligence as is ordinarily exercised in their profession... . It has been uniformly held that expert testimony is necessary to establish negligent practice in any profession.... [T]o make out a case, the plaintiff must show by expert testimony that there was a deviation from proper practices in the administration of the [medical treatment], ...”
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.