Dougherty v. Gifford’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Central Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Stemmons Northwest Bank, N.A. (1992), Woodruff v. Wright (2001)
1 federal appellate · 35 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 In Re King's Estate · Garza v. Alviar · Cain v. Bain · Cochran v. Wool Growers Central Storage Co. · Newspapers, Inc. v. Love
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] consensual relationship between a physician and a patient may exist where others have contracted with the physician on the patient’s behalf_ The important fact in determining whether the relationship is a consensual one ... is not who contracted for the service but whether it was contracted for with the express or implied consent of the patient or for his benefit_ Where ... healthcare services are rendered on behalf of the patient and are done for the patient’s benefit, a consensual physician-patient relationship exists for the purposes of medical malpractice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When considering a factual sufficiency challenge to a jury’s verdict, courts of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence, not just that evidence which supports the verdict. A court of appeals can set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust. The court of appeals is not a fact finder. Accordingly, the court of appeals may not pass upon the witnesses’ credibility or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, even if the evidence would clearly support a different result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Dougherty argues that there was no evidence that the past medical expenses were necessary and reasonable, and an award including these amounts is impermissibly speculative. See Roth v. Law, 579 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Dougherty and Molina made no objection to the evidence of past medical expenses on this or any other ground. Indeed, their counsel expressly stated that he had no objection to such evidence. Any error in this respect was waived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.