Martin v. Stratton’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Christian v. Gray (2003), Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. (1982)
10 federal appellate · 24 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 8 Cal. 3d 229 - Cobbs v. Grant · Canterbury v. Spence · 3 Cal. 3d 780 - Bardessono v. Michels · Clark v. Gibbons · 81 Wash. 2d 12 - ZeBarth v. Swedish Hospital Medical Center
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every fact favorable to the party against whom the demurrer is directed, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from them is admitted as true by the demurrer to the evidence. A demurrer may not be sustained unless there is an entire absence of proof to show any right of recovery.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence only. The inference of negligence on the part of the defendant, which arises under the rule is rebuttable. It may be overcome by a satisfactory explanation offered by the defendant. Ordinarily, the weight of the rebuttal evidence offered by the defendant to overcome the inference of negligence on the part of the defendant which arises under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is for the jury. Unless all reasonable minds are bound to reach the same conclusion, it is the jury, in a jury trial that is to determine whether or not the explanation offered by the defendant is ‘satisfactory’ enough to overcome the inference of negligence, even though the defendant’s evidence be undisputed. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The majority rule appears to be that a doctor has a duty to reveal only information which would be disclosed by a doctor of good standing within the medical community of which the doctor is a member, and plaintiff has the burden of establishing the standard and establishing defendant violated the standard____ Other cases indicate disclosure of all material risks is required, material risks being determined by the seriousness of the consequence, the probability of occurrence and the feasibility of alternatives .-... [Pjlaintiff has the burden of establishing materiality, but once materiality is shown disclosure is required, subject to certain exceptions, regardless of the custom of physicians in the locality.””
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.