Schenck v. Government of Guam’s Empirical Analysis
609 F.2d 387 · 1979
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1991 · most notably Elam v. College Park Hospital (1982), United States v. Paducah Towing Co. (1982)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Applies 48 U.S.C. § 1424
Relies on 33 Ill. 2d 326 - Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital · Costello v. United States · De Castro v. Board of Commissioners · Sancho v. Texas Co · Miller v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“based upon a tenable theory and is not inescapably wrong or manifest error.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is substantial evidence in the record that the hospital did not follow its own by-laws and the guidelines of the Hospital Accreditation Manual because it did not establish and utilize an adequate audit committee and tissue review committee so as to review medical work done by private physicians within the hospital. There is also evidence it did not utilize accepted procedures in its pathology department and it did not have a policy in regard to therapeutic abortion. This evidence gives factual support to the finding of negligence by the trial court. However, any finding of negligence by the hospital must be predicated upon the existence of a legal duty of the hospital to the patient to review or supervise the treatment given in the hospital by a private physician. The district court acting in its capacity as the local appellate court for the Territory of Guam concluded as a matter of law that no such duty existed in that jurisdiction. We cannot say that the district court’s legal conclusion is without a rational basis or is inescapably wrong.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a finding of negligence ... is usually considered a question of fact and is ... reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.