Culbertson v. Mernitz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Panel determines that [Dr. Mernitz] did not advise [Mrs. Culbertson] of the complication of cervical adhesion to the vagina; the Panel further determines that such non-disclosure does not constitute a failure to comply with the appropriate standard of care, as such complication is not considered a risk of such surgery requiring disclosure to the patient.”

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

2. “standard is the law in this State and such standard does 'not contemplate the necessity of expert medical testimony. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Culbertsons that the trial court had erroneously entered summary judgment on Counts II and IV because an issue of fact remained as to whether the risk of cervical adhesion to the vagina was a”

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