Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 Cal. App. 3d 121 - Evans v. Ohanesian

39 Cal. App. 3d 121 - Evans v. Ohanesian’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
5
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 495 So. 2d 1298 - McLean v. Hunter (1986), Gaston v. Hunter (1978)

26 state decisions

9019741980199020002010decided

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 1 Cal. 3d 586 - United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. · 45 Cal. 2d 811 - Seneris v. Haas · Mosley v. Arden Farms Co. · Schwartz v. Helms Bakery Limited · 37 Cal. 2d 465 - Huffman v. Lindquist

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Nor is it critical whether a medical expert is a general practitioner or a specialist so long as he exhibits knowledge of the subject. Where a duly licensed and practicing physician has gained knowledge of the standard of care applicable to a specialty in which he is not directly engaged but as to which he has an opinion based on education, experience, observation or association with that specialty, his opinion is competent. [Citation.] The reason for not requiring specialization in a certain field is obvious. Physicians are reluctant to testify against each other. [Citations.] Consequently, when an expert can be found, it is immaterial whether he is a general practitioner or a specialist providing he has knowledge of the standard of care in any given field; otherwise, the plaintiff could never prove a case against a specialist unless he had an expert of the particular specialty, and the plaintiff would never be able to sue a general practitioner unless he had a general practitioner who was willing to testify as an expert. [Citation.]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[the periodontist's] standard of practice as a specialist was higher than the standard of practice of general practitioners ... and... it would be unfair to hold the defendant to a higher standard of practice than that possessed generally by other dentists....”
    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.