McBride v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
462 F.2d 72 · 1972
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Hamil v. Bashline (1978), Scafidi v. Seiler (1990)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on Hicks v. United States · Johnson v. Vaughn · Burrows v. Hawaiian Trust Company · 134 Cal. App. 2d 433 - Agnew v. City of Los Angeles
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Unless he represents that he has greater or less skill or knowledge, one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar communities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a plaintiff's cause of action rests upon an allegedly negligent failure to give necessary treatment, he must show, with reasonable medical probability, that the treatment would have successfully prevented the patient's injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When a plaintiff’s cause of action rests upon an allegedly negligent failure to give necessary treatment, he must show, with reasonable medical probability, that the treatment would have successfully prevented the patient’s injury. He need not prove with certainty that the injury would not have occurred after proper treatment. [Footnote citing to Hicks v. United States, supra.] In most situations the best medical treatment in the world cannot provide an absolute guarantee of success; medicine is not an exact science in that sense. Yet the absence of positive certainty should not bar recovery if negligent failure to provide treatment deprives a patient of a significant improvement in his chances for recovery. We think the plaintiff demonstrated the requisite reasonable medical probability in this case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.