Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 N.M. 406 - Crouch v. Most

Crouch v. Most’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
5
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Hamilton v. Hardy (1976), Hines v. St. Joseph's Hospital (1974)

1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

230196719701980199020002010decided

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 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Woods v. Brumlop · Cervantes v. Forbis · Buchanan v. Downing · Lopez v. Heesen

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

  1. “Before a physician or surgeon can be held liable for malpractice in the treatment of his patient, he must have departed from the recognized standards of medical practice in the community, or must have neglected to do something required by those standards. [Cases cited]. The fact that a poor result is achieved or'that an unintended incident transpired, unless exceptional circumstances are present, does not establish liability without a showing that the result or incident occurred because of the physician’s failure to meet the standard either by his acts, neglect, or inattention. Such facts must generally be established by expert testimony. [Citations.] Likewise, expert testimony is generally required to establish causal connection. [Emphasis added].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In that case, the doctor failed to inform and advise plaintiff of the dangers inherent in electroshock treatments, and falsely advised the patient that no danger could result from the treatment. [Emphasis added]”
    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.