Tilotta v. Goodall’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Insurance Co. of North America v. Security Insurance Co. (1990), Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc. (1991)
69 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 280th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Gaines v. Hamman · Arnold v. National County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. · Hart v. Van Zandt · Lenger v. Physician's General Hospital, 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) the applicable standard of care and its breach; (3) resulting injury; and (4) a reasonably close causal connection between the alleged breach of the standard of care and the alleged injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A summary judgment may be based on uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested witness, or of an expert witness as to subject matter concerning which the trier of fact must be guided solely by the opinion testimony of experts, if the evidence is clear, positive and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Westerlund v. Naaman“the statement of the law [as to the standard of care for medical malpractice suits] most serviceable to this jurisdiction is as follows: A physician who undertakes a mode or form of treatment which a reasonable and prudent member of the medical profession would undertake shall not be subject to liability for harm caused thereby to the patient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. Wah
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.