Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 697 N.W.2d 119 - Ratcliff v. Graether

Ratcliff v. Graether’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2018

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

7020052010decided

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 Waldman v. Rohrbaugh · Teeters v. Currey · Ewing v. Beck · Stanbury v. Bacardi · Langner v. Simpson

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.

  1. “We review a ruling on a motion for summary judgment for errors at law. Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is appropriate if the only conflict concerns the legal consequences of undisputed facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Peppmeier v. Murphy
  2. “if the treatment by the doctor is a continuing course and the patient’s disease or condition is of such a nature as to impose on the doctor a duty of continuing treatment and care, the statute does not commence running until treatment by the [doctor] for the particular disease or condition involved has terminated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. The Estate of Erika L. Herren Anderson, by and Through Its Duly Appointed Administrator, Todd Herren and Todd Herren, Individually and as Next Best Friend and Natural Father of Ryan Herren, a Minor, and Brynn Herren, a Minor v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, PLC, a Corporation Charles W. Love, an Individual and Pathology Laboratory, P.C., a Corporation N/K/A Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C.
  3. “If there is actual proof that the patient knows or reasonably should know of the injury or harm before termination of medical treatment , the statute of limitations is not tolled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Michelle R. Skadburg v. Gary Gately and Whitfield and Eddy, PLC

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.