Duprey v. Shane’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 231 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 43 Cal. 3d 148 - Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection District (1987), 7 Cal. 3d 616 - Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange (1972)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 208 state decisions — followed in 24 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 33 Cal. 2d 80 - Summers v. Tice · Baugh v. Rogers · Finnegan v. Royal Realty Co. · 37 Cal. 2d 159 - Popejoy v. Hannon · 27 Cal. 2d 716 - Heaton v. Kerlan
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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[I]t is perfectly apparent that the person involved Dr. Shane bore towards his employee two relationships that of employer and that of doctor there should be no hesitancy in recognizing this fact as a fact. Such a conclusion, in this case, is in precise accord with the facts and is realistic and not legalistic. We conclude, therefore, that an employee injured in an industrial accident may sue the attending physician for malpractice if the original injury is aggravated as a result of the doctor's negligence, and that such right exists whether the attending doctor is the insurance doctor or the employer."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“`That independent professions by the fact of business contact with the employer should be absolved of responsibility for mistake, avoidable or unjustified neglect resulting in secondary affliction, seems obnoxious to the purpose and spirit of such a statute. To so hold might induce industry to encourage quackery, to place a premium upon negligence, inefficiency and wanton disregard of the professional obligations of medical departments of industry, toward the artisan.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is our conclusion that when the employing doctor elected to treat the industrial injury, the doctor assumed the responsibilities that any doctor would have assumed had he been called in on the case. As will be pointed out, such third party doctor can be sued for malpractice resulting in an aggravation of an industrial injury, or a new injury. It follows that the employer-doctor may be sued for malpractice when he elects to treat the industrial injury.... “It is equally true, and admitted by all here concerned, that, in tort cases generally, when a person is injured by a tortious act and this injury is aggravated by the negligence of the attending physician, such aggravation of the injury is within the scope of the risk created by the original tortious act. This rule applies to workmen’s compensation cases.””
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.