Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 FSUPP 1276 - McGee v. Riekhof

McGee v. Riekhof’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
7
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

3 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2015

3 district · 14 state decisions

10019781980199020002010decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · McGee v. International Life Insurance · United States v. Peltier · L. D. Reeder Contractors of Arizona, an Arizona Corporation v. Higgins Industries, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation

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

  1. “doctor could be said to have treated an out-of-state patient by mail”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"In each of these cases [ Aylstock v. Mayo Found. (D.Mont. 1972), 341 F. Supp. 560 ; McAndrew v. Burnett (M.D.Penn. 1974), 374 F. Supp. 460 ; Gelineau v. New York University Hosp. (D.N.J. 1974), 375 F. Supp. 661 ] the plaintiff had traveled out of the forum state to seek medical services elsewhere. While they were outside the forum, alleged negligent acts occurred, and upon returning to the forum, they suffered injury. In each case the basis for the proximate cause of the injuries occurred outside the forum. It is to these cases, that the `portable tort' language of Wright [v. Yackley] is most apropos. The case at bar is singularly distinguishable because the alleged negligent act — advising plaintiff to return to work prematurely — occurred in Montana. This is not a case of defendant treating plaintiff in Utah and then having the effects of the treatment felt only after plaintiff returned to Montana. Plaintiff McGee was in Montana when the diagnosis was rendered."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In the case of personal services focus must be on the place where the services are rendered, since this is the place of the ... patient’s need. ... It is in the very nature of such services that their consequences will be felt wherever the person may choose to go. However, the idea that tortious rendition of such services is a portable tort which can be deemed to have been committed wherever the consequences foreseeably were felt is wholly inconsistent with the public interest in having services of this sort generally available.”
    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.