Hall v. Ervin’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2009
6 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 58 Tenn. App. 15 - Osborne v. Frazor · 57 Tenn. App. 10 - Frazor v. Osborne · Baldwin v. Knight · 155 Ga. App. 670 - Shannon v. Thornton · Runnells v. Rogers
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[TJhe statutory exception was intended to apply to cases where something never intended to be inserted at all or something only temporarily utilized was negligently permitted to remain in a patient’s body, such as a clamp or sponge following surgery, and not to an object which had been deliberately implanted there, such as an intra-uterine contraceptive device, a pacemaker, dental work or other devices knowingly and intentionally inserted and intended to remain for an indefinite period of time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The statute of limitations in malpractice actions shall be one (1) year as set forth in § 28-3-104. [[Image here]] (3) In no event shall any such action be brought more than three (3) years after the date on which the negligent act or omission occurred except where there is fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendant, in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after discovery that the cause of action exists. (4) The time limitation herein set forth shall not apply in cases where a foreign object has been negligently left in a patient’s body, in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after the alleged injury or wrongful act is discovered or should have been discovered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. Semmer“The time limitation herein set forth shall not apply in cases where a foreign object has been negligently left in a patient’s body, in which case the action shall be commenced within one (1) year after the alleged injury or wrongful act is discovered or should have been discovered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. Semmer
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.