Hoskins v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2017
23 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
Relies on Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc. · Webb v. Jarvis · 174 Ind. App. 439 - Bassett v. Glock · Oelling v. Rao · Jordan v. Deery
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the evidence does not support the conclusion that the defendants [Doctors] failed to meet the applicable standard of care as charged in the complaint.” Record at 60. The panel expressed no other opinions. 4 . Dr. Kovacs’s credentials include designations of D-OG (Doctor of Obstetrics and Gynecology) and F.A.C.O.G. (Fellowship of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). 5 . Over the Doctors' objections, the trial court accepted the affidavit and supplemental affidavit prepared by Dr. Kovacs, which the Kennedys submitted. The Doctors attacked the sufficiency of the affidavits because Dr. Kovacs failed to address the issue of proximate cause. The Doctors' assertions that the Kovacs affidavits did not provide "expert opinion contrary to the medical review panel findings on the issue of proximate cause ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kennedy v. Murphy“as required by the above portion of the perjury statute, and would not subject the subscriber to the same penalties as are prescribed by law for the making of a false affidavit, Affidavit 1 is, therefore, not a verification by affirmation. We further note that T.R. 11(B) allows a subscriber simply to affirm the truth of the matter to be verified by a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) a duty on the part of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff; (2) a failure to conform his conduct to the requisite standard of care required by the relationship; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff resulting from that failure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McIntosh v. Cummins
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.