8 Cal. 2d 82 - Ales v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard (1944), 29 Cal. 2d 34 - Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters (1946)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Michener v. Hutton · Davis v. Kerr · Wharton v. Warner · Funk v. Bonham · Dimock v. Miller
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it has been held or recognized that the leaving of a foreign object, such as a ... sponge, in the body of a patient following an operation is sufficient in itself to create a presumption or inference of negligence on the part of a physician or surgeon or to call for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ochoa v. Vered · Ochoa v. Vered“'The jury should have been instructed in unqualified language that if the surgeon closed the incision without first having removed the sponge, a prima facie case was thereby made against him as a matter of law ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Ochoa v. Vered · Ochoa v. Vered““Why was a foreign substance left in the parts, which the operating surgeon should have removed ? It was for him to acquit himself of the negligence with respect to it. The sponge escaped his observation. Why? Was it so hidden and concealed that reasonable care on his part would not have disclosed it, or were conditions such that, in his professional judgment, further exploration by him for sponges would have endangered the safety of the patient? In a word, did he do all that reasonable care and skill would require ? Except as one or the other of these questions can be answered affirmatively from the evidence, the law will presume to the contrary, and attribute the unfortunate consequences to his contributing negligence.””
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.