Gans v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2017
1 federal appellate · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Bates v. State Bar · Rodriguez v. New York · Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co. · Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ne who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or OS the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court limited its holding in Hamil to cases where the issue is ‘the adequacy of medical services rendered in a fact situation to which section 323(a) applies, ....’” Gans v. Gray, 612 F.Supp. 608, 614 (E.D. Pa. 1985). Thus, for Hamil to be applicable, a case must”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. The employment of the attorney or other basis for duty; 2. The failure of the attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; and 3. That such negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions 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.