Morrison v. Chan’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 173 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins (2001), Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc. (1990)
11 federal appellate · 173 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth))
Relationships
Relies on Cameron v. Terrell & Garrett, Inc. · Sax v. Votteler · Gaddis v. Smith · Nelson v. Krusen · Robinson v. Weaver
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding any other law, no health care liability claim may be commenced unless the action is filed within two years from the occurrence of the breach or tort or from the date the medical or health care treatment that is the subject of the claim or the hospitalization for which the claim is made is completed....”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage“All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““Morrison’s reliance on the above cases is misplaced. The Nelson v. Krusen and Neagle decisions are premised on the fact that it was not possible for the parties to discover the injury within the two-year period. Those cases held that, as to those particular plaintiffs, the ... acts were unconstitutional. In Nelson v. Krusen, we stated that, ‘article 5.82, section 4 of the Insurance Code is unconstitutional, under the open courts provision, to the extent it purports to cut off an injured person’s right to sue before the person has a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong and bring suit.’ [citation omitted]” (emphasis in original)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.