Morrison v. MacNamara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 40 district · 66 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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the context of medical malpractice, the superior knowledge of the doctor with his expertise in medical matters and the generally limited ability of the patient to ascertain the existence of certain risks and dangers that inhere in certain medical treatments, negates the critical elements of the defense, i.e., knowledge and appreciation of the risk. Thus, save for exceptional circumstances, a patient cannot assume the risk of negligent treatment.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weil v. Seltzer · Rotan v. Egan

2. “[T]he nation’s capital is not a community isolated from recent advances in the quality of care and treatment of patients. Rather, it is one of the leading medical centers in quality health care.... The hospitals in the District not only possess some of the most recent medical technology, but also attract some of the best medical talent from all over the country.... Moreover, any purported disparity between the skills of practitioners in various urban centers has for the most part been eliminated. Unlike the diversified and often limited training that was available a hundred years ago, medical education has been standardized throughout the nation through a system of national accreditation_ In sum, the major underpinnings of the locality doctrine no longer obtain. The locality rule has been quite properly criticized as a relic of the nineteenth century which has no relevance to the realities of modem medical practice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Travers v. District of Columbia · Capitol Hill Hospital v. Jones

3. “[ajlthough the defense of assumption of risk has been applied in a wide variety of circumstances to defeat negligence claims, the defense has rarely been sustained in actions involving professional negligence.... [T]he disparity in knowledge between professionals and their clientele generally precludes recipients of professional services from knowing whether a professional’s conduct is in fact negligent_Thus, save for exceptional circumstances, a patient cannot assume the risk of negligent treatment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dennis v. Jones · Weil ex rel. Estate of Weil v. Seltzer