Cary v. Arrowsmith’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2013
1 federal appellate · 8 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.
Relationships
Relies on Turner v. State · 345 Pa. Super. 66 - Boyer v. Smith · Cardwell v. Bechtol · Byers v. Railroad · 19 Tenn. App. 404 - Standard Life Ins. Co. of the South v. Strong
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he failure to give such information [needed to obtain an informed consent] is not the type of omission that results in negligence, but rather it negates consent for the treatment. Without consent, the treatment constitutes a battery. [T]he correct analysis in our opinion is that if the evidence shows that the person had the capacity to consent, then the question becomes whether the consent given was effective because it was based upon adequate information on which to make the decision to submit to treatment; if not, then a battery results, but if so, then the question becomes whether the defendant subsequently did anything negligent in the administration of the treatment for which consent was obtained.... These theories, battery and malpractice, are not ordinarily inconsistent, and no election of remedies is generally required; if a battery exists, then malpractice may not necessarily be reached, but if no battery can be shown, then the issue clearly emerges as one of malpractice. This distinction between battery and malpractice (as a form of negligence) is consistently recognized in the case law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shadrick v. Coker“the better rule is that a treating physician must obtain the patient’s informed consent for the medical treatment of the patient and not for each component part of the treatment process. The patient has an adequate legal remedy, ie., a malpractice action sounding in negligence, for the injurious consequence of therapeutic drug treatment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huss v. Gayden
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.