73 Wash. 2d 476 - Douglas v. Bussabarger’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 100 Wash. 2d 421 - Petersen v. State (1983), Wilkinson v. Vesey (1972)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · 45 Cal. 2d 811 - Seneris v. Haas · 172 Cal. App. 2d 756 - Agnew v. Parks · 72 Wash. 2d 73 - Pederson v. Dumouchel · 62 Wash. 2d 351 - Horner v. NORTHERN PAC. ETC. HOSP., INC.
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`eliminate with certainty all other possible causes or inferences'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pacheco v. Ames · Curtis v. Lein“Modern means of transportation permit country doctors to attend up-to-date medical seminars; the general circulation of medical journals makes new developments readily available to them and they can easily and quickly communicate with the most modern and up-to-date medical centers in cities throughout the United States. As has been pointed out, today’s rural practitioner can and does give and receive advice transmitted thousands of miles over the telephone, and he is expected to keep himself apprised of recent developments as they are regularly published in medical journals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is quite generally agreed that the introduction of some evidence which tends to show specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant, but which does not purport to furnish a full and complete explanation of the occurrence does not destroy the inferences which are consistent with the evidence, and so does not deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of res ipsa loquitur.”
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.