Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 945 P.2d 175 - McDougal v. Weed

McDougal v. Weed’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2010

6 state decisions

40199720002010decided

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 Flowers v. Walker · Burns v. Thomas · Foil v. Ballinger · 184 W. Va. 212 - Sattler v. Bailey · 65 Ill. App. 3d 255 - Guebard v. Jabaay

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

  1. “that the medical malpractice statute of limitations is tied only to the discovery of the plaintiff's legal injury and not to the discovery of the tortfeasor's identity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “summary judgment is almost never appropriate in a fraudulent concealment case, except “(i) when the facts are so clear that reasonable persons could not disagree about the underlying facts or about the application of the governing legal standards to the facts or (ii) when the facts underlying the allegation of fraudulent concealment are so tenuous, vague, or insufficiently established that they fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to concealment, with the result that the claim fails as a matter of law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"No malpractice action against a health care provider may be brought unless it is commenced within two years after the plaintiff or patient discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever first occurs, but not to exceed four years after the date of the alleged act, omission, neglect or occurrence...."”
    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.