Karp v. Cooley’s Empirical Analysis
493 F.2d 408 · 1974
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Panter v. Marshall Field & Co. (1981), Sard v. Hardy (1977)
16 federal appellate · 19 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Salem v. United States Lines Company · 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital · Canterbury v. Spence
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the instant case it is difficult to determine exactly what injury appellants complain of as resulting from a lack of informed consent. Although not particularly well-developed in Texas cases, other jurisdictions have held (1) that an unrevealed risk that should have been made known must materialize; (2) the unrevealed risk must be harmful to the patient; and (3) causality exists only when disclosure of significant risks incidental to treatment would have resulted in the patient’s decision against it. * * * * * ⅜ “Appellants failed to produce substantial evidence establishing a medical standard as to what disclosures should have been made to Mr. Karp, any violation of that standard, or causation. Thus, the trial court properly directed a verdict for defendants on the informed consent question.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he majority rule compels a physician to disclose facts which a reasonable medical practitioner in a similar community and of the same school of medical thought would have disclosed to his patient regarding the proposed treatment. ... A “minority” rule has developed requiring disclosure of all “material” information which a reasonable man in the situation which the physician knew or should have known to be the plaintiffs would deem significant in making a decision to undergo the recommended treatment. (Citations omitted.)”
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.