44 Ohio App. 2d 186 - Faulkner v. Pezeshki’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2006
18 state decisions
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 Ardoline v. Keegan · Brune v. Belinkoff · 72 Wash. 2d 73 - Pederson v. Dumouchel · Webb v. Jorns · 151 W. Va. 977 - Hundley v. Martinez
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.
“"Locating an expert to testify for the plaintiff in a malpractice action is known to be a very difficult task, mainly because in most cases one doctor is reluctant and unwilling to testify against another doctor. Although doctors may complain privately to each other about the incompetence of other doctors, they are extremely reluctant to air the matter publicly." ( 44 Ohio App.2d 186, 193-94 , 337 N.E.2d 158, 164 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Irrespective of the continuing validity of the same or similar locality standard in Ohio, we are of the view that the standard should not exclude testimony of an expert witness where the standards to which he proposes to testify are minimum standards applicable wherever medicine is practiced. The question, to us, is not whether the proffered witness practiced in Portsmouth or a similar locality, but if he knows what the applicable standards are. [Citation.] To the extent that minimum standards are involved, the standard of practice in Portsmouth and elsewhere are within his scope of knowledge. Hundley v. Martinez (1967), 151 W. Va. 977 , 158 S.E. 2d 159 ; [citation].” Faulkner v. Pezeshki (1975), 44 Ohio App. 2d 186, 205 , 337 N.E. 2d 158, 163 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where a physician accidentally severs a ureter of a patient during a hysterectomy and closes the wound without exercising some technique to determine the condition of the ureters, such is not an exercise of proper care by a surgeon performing such hysterectomy, and [that] a finding by the jury that such conduct constitutes malpractice”
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.