Block v. McVay’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Canterbury v. Spence (1972), Bartak v. Bell-Galyardt & Wells, Inc. (1980)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 36 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 Natanson v. Kline · 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Natanson v. Kline · Di Filippo v. Preston · Corn v. French
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a physician brings to his patient care, skill, and knowledge, he is not liable to him for damages resulting from a bona fide error of judgment of which he may be guilty. 'The law requires a physician to base any professional decision he may make on skill and careful study and consideration of the case, but when the decision depends on an exercise of judgment, the law requires only that the judgment be bona fide. A physician is not an insurer of the correctness of his judgment[.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no evidence in this case to show that there were any substantial risks or hazards inherent in an operation for removal of a lymph node tumor in this area. Again, the unfortunate result of the operation does not supply this lack nor do we feel that such matters are within the common knowledge of laymen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wheeldon v. Madison“You are instructed that the alleged negligence of Defendants must be established by the testimony of medical or hospital experts. You must determine the standard of skill and care required of said defendants only from the opinions from those witnesses who have testified as expert witnesses as to such standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Magbuhat v. Kovarik
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.