Thompson v. Ish’s Empirical Analysis
1889
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably Pulitzer v. Chapman (1935), Scanlon v. Kansas City (1930)
1 federal appellate · 79 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 Blackburn v. Crawfords · Renihan v. . Dennin · In Re Proving the Will of Coleman · Fraser v. Jennison · Loder v. . Whelpley
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . fifth, a physician or surgeon, concerning any information which he may have acquired from any patient while attending him in a professional character, and which information was necessary to enable him to prescribe for such patient as a physician, or do any act for him as a surgeon. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Notwithstanding our statute provides for no exception, still it deals .with a privilege, and it must be taken as established law that the privilege may be waived by the patient; and we have held that it may be waived by the representative, and, in this, our ruling accords with that of the supreme court of Michigan under a like statute. If the patient may waive this right or privilege for the purpose of protecting his rights in a litigated cause, we see no substantial reason why it may not be done by those who represent him after his death, for the purpose of protecting rights acquired under him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Denny v. Robertson“"This statute, as we have held, covers information acquired by observation while the physician is in attendance upon his patient, as well as communications made by the patient to him (Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 34 ); but the rule it establishes is one of privilege for the protection of the patient, and he may waive it if he sees fit (Scripps v. Foster, 41 Mich. 742 [ 3 N. W. 216 ]); and what he may do in his lifetime those who represent him after his death may also do fbr the protection of the interests they claim under him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grieve v. Howard
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.