Griffith v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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.

1. “(1) Indiana has adopted the "prudent patient" standard in informed consent cases. (2) The medical review panel cannot render an expert opinion regarding compliance with the prudent patient standard. (3) Jones' motion for partial summary judgment on informed consent was denied, but the panel was directed to find, pursuant to Ind. Code § 16-9.5-9 -7(c), that there are material issues of fact, not requiring expert opinion, bearing on liability for consideration by the court or jury. (4) The phrase "a factor" lowers the traditional threshold of causation, and that it does not require that the conduct complained of be a substantial factor, but means any circumstance or influence which brings about or contributes to a result; and the medical review panel chairman was ordered to so instruct the panel. (5) Dr. Griffith's motion to exclude certain evidence from going to the panel was denied, but the panel chairman was ordered to instruct the panel concerning the Indiana law of evidence on remedial action taken by a defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Griffith v. Jones

2. “(1) Whether the trial court erred in holding that the "prudent patient" standard, rather than the modified locality rule, is applicable in an informed consent case. (2) Whether the trial court erred in precluding the medical review panel's issuance of an expert opinion regarding compliance with the standard of care in an informed consent case by instructing the panel to find, pursuant to Ind.Code § 16-9.5-9-7(c), that there were material issues of fact, not requiring an expert opinion, bearing on liability for consideration by the trier of fact. (3) Whether the trial court erroneously instructed the medical review panel concerning the definition and application of the phrase "a factor" in Ind. Code § 16-9.5-9 -7(d). (4) Whether the trial court erroneously denied Dr. Griffith's motion to exclude from the medical review panel a consent form and a copy of Ind. Code § 16-9.5-1 -4.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Griffith v. Jones

3. “the weight of authority supports the trial court's determination that the prudent patient standard of care in informed consent cases, as articulated in Canterbury, supra, has been adopted in Indiana.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Culbertson v. Mernitz