Swope v. Printz’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably 72 Ill. 2d 249 - Walski v. Tiesenga (1978), Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc. (1991)
2 federal appellate · 48 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 Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Company · Pedigo v. Roseberry · Murphy Ex Rel. Murphy v. Land · State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison · Laughlin v. Forgrave
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) In treating the plaintiff, the doctor did or failed to do something which caused the injury; (2) The doctor’s conduct failed to meet the required standards of professional competence and was therefore negligent; (3) The doctor had actual knowledge that he caused the injury; (4) With that knowledge the doctor intended by his post-injury conduct and statements to conceal from the patient the existence of a claim for malpractice; (5) The doctor’s acts were fraudulent; and (6) Patient was not guilty of a lack of diligence in sooner ascertaining the truth.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of defendant's profession.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Blevens v. Holcomb“[w]hat his personal, individual understanding of acceptable medical standards may have been was not shown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Blevens v. Holcomb
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.