Dimoff v. Maitre’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “'in a case where want of skill or lack of care is so apparent ... as to be understood by a layman, and requires only common knowledge and experience to understand it.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 460 So. 2d 156 - Tuscaloosa Orthopedic Appliance Co. v. Wyatt · 896 So. 2d 385 - Valentine v. Watters

2. “"An exception to the rule requiring testimony by a medical expert exists `in a case where want of skill or lack of care is so apparent as to be understood by a layman, and requires only common knowledge and experience to understand it....' [The medical technician's] affidavit raises at least a scintilla of evidence that this will prove to be such a case once the facts are more fully developed."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sorrell v. King · 516 So. 2d 562 - Bell v. Hart

3. “"The issue to be determined on this appeal is whether, for the purpose of opposing a summary judgment motion, Robinson's affidavit raises a genuine issue as to any material fact or shows that Dr. Maitre is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P. "Dr. Maitre contends that he is entitled to summary judgment because no competent expert testimony was offered to contradict his affidavit negating the allegations of the complaint. Liner v. Temple, 373 So.2d 638 (Ala.1979). He states that, as a general rule, in medical malpractice cases, proof as to what is or is not proper practice, treatment, and procedure can be established only by expert medical evidence. This statement is taken from Underwood v. Holy Name of Jesus Hospital, 289 Ala. 216 , 266 So.2d 773 (1972), and Parrish v. Spink, 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969); Tant v. Women's Clinic, 382 So.2d 1120 (Ala.1980), contains a different statement of the same rule. Dr. Maitre argues that, because Robinson is not a dentist, his affidavit does not present competent expert testimony within the meaning of the above rule. "An exception to the rule requiring testimony by a medical expert exists `in a case where want of skill or lack of care is so apparent ... as to be understood by a layman, and requires only common knowledge and experience to understand it....' Lloyd Noland Foundation, Inc. v. Harris, 295 Ala. 63, 66 , 322 So.2d 709 (1975); Parrish v. Spink, 284 Ala. 263 , 224 So.2d 621 (1969). Robinson”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 516 So. 2d 562 - Bell v. Hart