Stundon v. Stadnik’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2010
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 Ewing v. Goode · Woods v. Brumlop · Di Filippo v. Preston · Lemos v. Madden · 2 Ariz. App. 358 - Shetter v. Rochelle
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The basis for departing from the normal rule that a standard of care must be provided by expert medical testimony arises where asserted negligence consists of conduct so obviously wanting in reasonable medical skill and prudence that it may be so adjudged even by laymen." Stundon v. Stadnik, id. at 22 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Grizzle · Roybal v. Bell““ ‘ * * * The naked facts that defendant performed operations upon her eye, and that pain followed, and that subsequently the eye was in such a bad condition that it had to be extracted, establish neither the neglect and unskillfulness of the treatment, nor the causal connection between it and the unfortunate event. A physician is not a warrantor of cures. If the maxim, “Res ipsa loquitur,” were applicable to a case like this, and a failure to cure were held to be evidence, however slight, of negligence on the part of the physician or surgeon causing the bad result, few would be courageous enough to practice the healing art, for they would have to assume financial liability for nearly all the “ills that flesh is heir to.” ’ ” Id., at 22.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keller v. Anderson““We believe that the trial court was correct in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Plaintiff failed to show any causal connection between defendant’s alleged negligent acts and the plaintiff’s injury. Proof of proximate causation is upon the plaintiff. Lemos v. Madden, 28 Wyo. 1 , 200 P. 791, 794 ; Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz. App. 358 , 409 P.2d 74, 83 ; Woods v. Brumlop, 71 N.M. 221 , 377 P.2d 520, 522 .” Id., at 19-20.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keller v. Anderson
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.