Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 868 SW2D 594 - Kilpatrick v. Bryant

Kilpatrick v. Bryant’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
9
states following
May 2020
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably McCall v. Wilder (1995), Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co. (2008)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 state decisions

3601993200020102020decided

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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hamil v. Bashline · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Byrd v. Hall · Cooper v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, Inc.

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

  1. ““Causation (or cause in fact) is a very different concept from that of proximate cause. Causation refers to the cause and effect relationship between the tortious conduct and the injury. The doctrine of proximate cause encompasses the whole panoply of rules that may deny liability for otherwise actionable causes of harm.” Thus, proximate cause, or legal cause, concerns a determination of whether legal liability should be imposed where cause in fact has been established.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The recognized standard of acceptable professional practice in the profession and the specialty thereof, if any, that the defendant practices in the community in which the defendant practices or in a similar community at the time the alleged injury or wrongful action occurred; (2) That the defendant acted with less than or failed to act with ordinary and reasonable care in accordance with such standard; and (3) As a proximate result of the defendant’s negligent act or omission, the plaintiff suffered injuries which would not otherwise have occurred.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Causation in fact is a matter of probability, not possibility, and in a medical malpractice case, such must be shown to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.