51 Cal. 4th 1052 - Brown v. Mortensen’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
49 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1681 · 15 U.S.C. § 1681T · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1171 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1173 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1320D (§ 1178 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr · Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · English v. General Electric Co. · Trw Inc v. Adelaide Andrews
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'is intended to protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable medical information obtained from a patient by a health care provider, while at the same time setting forth limited circumstances in which the release of such information to specified entities or individuals is permissible.' [Citations.] [¶] ... 'The basic scheme of the [CMIA] ... is that a provider of health care must not disclose medical information without a written authorization from a patient.' [Citation.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“task is to 'identify the domain expressly pre-empted.' [Citation.] To do so, we focus first on the statutory language, 'which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent.' [Citation.]”
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.