Dyke v. Richard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

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

1. ““Section 5838 which specifies that a claim based on malpractice accrues at the time the claimant is last treated by the licensed .professional, comports with the legislative comment accompanying it, viz: ‘Section 5838 is based on the rule stated and followed in the Michigan case of De Haan v. Winter, 258 Mich. 293 ; 241 N.W. 923 (1932).’ If, however, that was simply the legislative intent it went beyond De Haan . Thus there was no rule announced in De Haan as to when the cause of action did accrue. The rule announced was that a cause of action did not accrue before the treatment stopped. The last sentence quoted above would seem to imply that a cause of action accrues only when the plaintiff is put to inquiry relative to the treatment accorded him. It is helpful to keep in mind the distinction between a statute which is intended to abrogate a common-law cause of action and a statute of limitation. A statute which expressly extinguishes a common-law right may be regarded as a proper exercise of legislative authority. But the statute here under consideration was intended to be a statute of limitations. It is a charge on the person who would assert a claim. It requires action on his part within a legislatively specified time, or obliges him to forego it altogether. Since ‘[i]t is of the essence of a law of limitation that it shall afford a reasonable time within which suit may be brought * * * ’, Price [v. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318, 324 (1865)], a statute which extinguishes the right”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Caron v. United States

2. ““ ‘Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident near Ann Arbor on August 25, 1965, and received injuries, which were treated at defendant St. Joseph Hospital. The treating physician was defendant Dr. Feller, who treated Ruth Dyke. This action was instituted against defendant Richard for negligence in the operation of his vehicle, and against defendant Dr. Feller for malpractice in failing to properly diagnose the injuries to Ruth Dyke, and against the defendant Hospital on the theory that defendant Feller was its agent and that he, and the X-ray technician employed by the Hospital were negligent in failing to X-ray her pelvic area. She claims this negligence resulted in their failing to find she had suffered a fractured acetabulum as a result of the accident, and that such failure caused her additional damages’” Id. at 742-743, 213 N.W.2d at 186 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Caron v. United States

3. ““Sec. 5805. No person may bring or maintain any action to recover dam ages for injuries to persons unless, after the claim first accrued he commences the action within the periods of time prescribed by this section. “(3) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions charging malpractice.: “Sec. 5838. A claim based on the malpractice of a person who is, or holds himself out to be, a member of a state licensed profession accrues at the time that persoh discontinues treating or otherwise serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudo-professional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose.” M.C.L.A. §§ 600.5805, 600.5838.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Caron v. United States