Chambers v. Nottebaum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. “"The rule is well established which prevents a doctor from operating on a patient without his express or implied consent, or in a manner contrary to the patient's express instructions. A statement of this rule was made in Wall v. Brim, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 478 , at page 481: `* * * The law is well settled that an operation cannot be performed without the patient's consent and that one performed without consent, express or implied, is a technical battery or trespass for which the operator is liable. * *'"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 370 So. 2d 1222 - Meretsky v. Ellenby · 99 So. 2d 730 - Zaretsky v. Jacobson

2. “[E]veryone has a fundamental right to the sole control of his or her person. As Justice Cardozo noted seventy-six years ago: Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.... An integral component of self-determination is the right to make choices pertaining to one's health, including the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment.... ... The issue involves a patient's right of self-determination and does not involve what is thought to be in the patient's best interests. More is involved in respect for self-determination than just the belief that each person knows what's best for him- or herself.... Even if it could be shown that an expert (or a computer) could do the job better, the worth of the individual, as acknowledged in Western ethical traditions and especially in Anglo-American law, provides an independent—and more important—ground for recognizing self-determination as a basic principle in human relations, particularly when matters as important as those raised by health care are at stake.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 937 So. 2d 114 - State v. Presidential Women's Center

3. “Under a free government, at least, the free citizen's first and greatest right, which underlies all others—the right to the inviolability of his person; in other words, the right to himself—is the subject of universal acquiescence, and this right necessarily forbids a physician or surgeon, however skillful or eminent, who has been asked to examine, diagnose, advise, and prescribe (which are at least necessary first steps in treatment and care), to violate, without permission, the bodily integrity of his patient by a major or capital operation, placing him under an anaesthetic for that purpose, and operating upon him without his consent or knowledge. 1 Kinkead on Torts, § 375, states that general rule on this subject as follows: The patient must be the final arbiter as to whether he will take his chances with the operation, or take his chances of living without it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 937 So. 2d 114 - State v. Presidential Women's Center