Naidu v. Laird’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc. (1994), Fraser v. United States (1996)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner · 100 Wash. 2d 421 - Petersen v. State · 116 Ill. 2d 528 - Airey v. Department of Revenue · 168 N.J. Super. 466 - McIntosh v. Milano
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) a special relation exists between •the actor [psychiatrist] and the third person [patient] wjiich imposes a duty upon the actor [psychiatrist] to control the third person’s [patient’s] conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor [psychiatrist] and the other [victim] which gives to the other [victim] a right to protection.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]hat a psychiatrist or therapist may have a duty to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to protect an intended or potential victim of his patient when he determines, or should determine, in the appropriate factual setting and in accordance with the standards of his profession established at trial, that the patient is or may present a probability of danger to that person. The relationship giving rise to that duty may be found either in that existing between the therapist and the patient, as was alluded to in Tarasoff II, or in the more broadly based obligation a practitioner may have to protect the welfare of the community, which is analogous to the obligation a physician has to warn third persons of infectious or contagious disease.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The special relationship which exists between mental health professionals and a patient provides the underlying basis for imposition of an affirmative duty owed by such professionals to persons other than the patient. That duty is to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary and available to protect an intended or potential victim(s) of the patient when the psychiatrist determines or should have determined, in keeping with the professional standards of the community, that the patient presents an unreasonable danger to that person(s).”
2 later decisions 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.