McLean v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 359 So. 2d 1256 - Everett v. Goldman · 477 So. 2d 1094 - Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University · Summerell v. Phillips · 334 So. 2d 395 - Johnson v. Welsh · 403 So. 2d 13 - Benson & Gold Chev. v. La. Motor Veh. Com'n
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even with the addition of the proferred testimony, the jury could have reached the same result without committing manifest error. Significantly, testimony to substantially the same effect as the prof-erred testimony was entered into evidence through the testimony of two general dentists called by plaintiff.... Accordingly, the error committed by the trial court in this respect does not warrant reversal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he requirement that malpractice claims be filtered through a medical review panel is not unreasonable and seems to be a rational effort to accomplish a plausible goal. A panel determination adverse to a malpractice claimant's interest does not preclude his filing a lawsuit. Such a determination would seem to exert subtle pressure on the claimant in a case of little worth to abandon or to settle his claim reasonably, thereby saving the defendant and his insurer the time, expense and worry of apparently needless litigation. And a favorable panel decision will probably aid the claimant in exerting pressure on a defendant to settle the case reasonably, thus treating the malpractice victim to savings in time and expense and to avoidance of possibly risky litigation. In those cases which do go to trial, a plaintiff successful before the panel will benefit from the evidentiary support of the panel's finding and the testimony of the panel members. In requiring a pre-suit medical review panel the act is not unreasonable; it has no far reaching or especially adverse effect upon the malpractice victim's or health care provider's rights. [ 359 So.2d at 1267 ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A. In a malpractice action based on the negligence of a ... dentist licensed under R.S. 37:751 et seq.... the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving: (1) The degree of knowledge or skill possessed or the degree of care ordinarily exercised by ... dentists ... licensed to practice in the state of Louisiana and actively practicing in a similar community or locale and under similar circumstances; and where the defendant practices in a particular specialty and where the alleged acts of medical negligence raise issues peculiar to the particular medical specialty involved, then the plaintiff has the burden of proving the degree of care ordinarily practiced by ... dentists... within the involved medical specialty.”
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.