Harle v. Krchnak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[an] exception to [both these rules] has been recognized where the nature of the alleged malpractice and injuries are plainly within the common knowledge of laymen, as where the negligence alleged is in the use of mechanical instruments, operating on the wrong portion of the body, or leaving surgical instruments or sponges within the body”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arguello v. Gutzman · Williford v. Banowsky

2. ““It is undisputed that the nurses assisting the doctor made a mistake in counting the sponges, . . “. . . There is no evidence that one or more of the sponges had come apart. As presented to the court the evidence simply showed that the sponges were not counted correctly . . “. . . There is no evidence that the count was necessarily hurried. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence detailing how the count was made, and the circumstances under which it was made, is that the circulating nurse was guilty of negligence in failing to properly count the sponges.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ramone v. Mani

3. “[t]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is generally held by Texas courts to be inapplicable to medical malpractice cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arguello v. Gutzman