Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 417 A2D 889 - Young v. Park

Young v. Park’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2018

1 district · 18 state decisions

1001980199020002010decided

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 Wilkinson v. Vesey · Schenck v. Roger Williams General Hospital · Marshall v. Tomaselli · Young v. Park · DiIorio v. Abington Mutual Fire Insurance

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

  1. ““[a] physician is not a guarantor of either a correct diagnosis or a successful course of treatment. While there is no duty to cure, a physician is bound to exercise the same degree of diligence and skill as physicians in good standing engaged in the same type of practice in similar localities in like cases. We have repeatedly said that, as a general rule, a departure from this standard of care, whether it be at the diagnostic or treatment stage, must be established by expert testimony, except if the lack of care is so obvious as to be within the [layperson’s] common knowledge.” Young v. Park, 417 A.2d 889, 893 (R.I.1980).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “matters concerning polycythemia and Myleran therapy are not so obvious that the need for expert testimony is obviated”
    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.