Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 Ariz. 186 - Dodson v. Pohle

Dodson v. Pohle’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
3
states following
July 1985
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 1985

11 state decisions

601952196019701980decided

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 Boyce v. Brown · Loudon v. Scott · Vonault v. O'Rourke · 98 Cal. App. 352 - Brown v. Shortlidge

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . (1) One licensed to practice medicine is presumed to possess the de gree of skill and learning which is possessed by the average member of the medical profession in good standing in the community in which he practices, and to apply that skill and learning, with ordinary and reasonable care, to cases which come to him for treatment. If he does not possess the requisite skill and learning, or if he does not apply it, he is guilty of malpractice. . . . (citation omitted) (2) Before a physician or surgeon can be held liable as for malpractice, he must have done something in his treatment of his patient which the recognized standard of good medical practice in the community in which he is practicing forbids in such cases, or he must have neglected to do something which such standard requires. . . . (citation omitted) (3) In order to sustain a verdict for the plaintiffs in an action for malpractice, the standard of medical practice in the community must be shown by affirmative evidence, and, unless there is evidence of such a standard, a jury may not be permitted to speculate as to what the required standard is, or whether the defendant has departed therefrom. . . . (citations omitted) (4) Negligence on the part of a physician or surgeon in the treatment of a case is never presumed, but must be affirmatively proven, and no presumption of negligence nor want of skill arises from the mere fact that a treatment was unsuccessful, failed to bring the best results, or that the pa”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(1) The accident (if applied to this case the condition suffered by plaintiff) must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (Explanation supplied). (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on th.e part of the plaintiff.””
    1 later decision 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.