7 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
cluster 506074green2 sentences1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir. 1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir. 1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . 1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir.1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir.1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . | 1 | 2 |
Collins v. Itohgreen2 sentences2023Collins v. Itoh, 160 Mont. 461, 467-68 , 503 P.2d 36, 40 (1972). “[A] plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care ‘by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.’” Griffin v. Moseley, 2010 MT 132, ¶ 31 , 356 Mont. 393 , 234 P.3d 869 (internal citation omitted). ¶10 Greene contends that the District Court erred when it granted Dr. McDowell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because, “[u]nder the unique circumstances of this case, expert testimony was not required as to any 2023Collins v. Itoh, 160 Mont. 461, 467-68 , 503 P.2d 36, 40 (1972). “[A] plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care ‘by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.’” Griffin v. Moseley, 2010 MT 132, ¶ 31 , 356 Mont. 393 , 234 P.3d 869 (internal citation omitted). ¶10 Greene contends that the District Court erred when it granted Dr. McDowell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because, “[u]nder the unique circumstances of this case, expert testimony was not required as to any | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Millergreen1 sentence2017See Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93, 114 (Ky. 2008) (concluding that, although information about a drug in the package insert and the Physicians’ Desk Reference “is relevant and useful information regarding the prescribing physician’s standard of care, it is not the sole determinant of the standard of care”); Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (observing that such materials are “intended to comply with the FDA’s regulations, to provide advertising and promotional material, and to limit the manufacturer’s liability” and cannot, by themselves, be | 1 | 1 |
Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gundersongreen1 sentence2017See Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93, 114 (Ky. 2008) (concluding that, although information about a drug in the package insert and the Physicians’ Desk Reference “is relevant and useful information regarding the prescribing physician’s standard of care, it is not the sole determinant of the standard of care”); Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (observing that such materials are “intended to comply with the FDA’s regulations, to provide advertising and promotional material, and to limit the manufacturer’s liability” and cannot, by themselves, be | 1 | 1 |
Morlino v. MED. CTR. OF OCEAN CTY.green1 sentence2017See Hyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. Gunderson, 279 S.W.3d 93, 114 (Ky. 2008) (concluding that, although information about a drug in the package insert and the Physicians’ Desk Reference “is relevant and useful information regarding the prescribing physician’s standard of care, it is not the sole determinant of the standard of care”); Richardson v. Miller, 44 S.W.3d 1, 16-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (observing that such materials are “intended to comply with the FDA’s regulations, to provide advertising and promotional material, and to limit the manufacturer’s liability” and cannot, by themselves, be | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montana Deaconess Hospital v. Gratton
green
2 sentences2010In Gratton , this Court stated that a plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care “by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.” Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189 , 545 P.2d at 672 . 2010In Gratton , this Court stated that a plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care “by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.” Gratton, 169 Mont. at 189 , 545 P.2d at 672 . | 2 | 1993–2010 |
United States v. Eneas Lavern Nick
green
2 sentences1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir. 1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir. 1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . 1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir.1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir.1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . | 2 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Everett Denoyer
green
2 sentences1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir. 1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir. 1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . 1991Morgan, 846 F.2d at 949 ; United States v. DeNoyer (8th Cir.1987), 811 F.2d 436, 438 ; United States v. Nick (9th Cir.1979), 604 F.2d 1199, 1201-1202 . | 2 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1991State v. Robinson (1987), 153 Ariz. 191 , 735 P.2d 801, 809-10 . 1991State v. Robinson (1987), 153 Ariz. 191 , 735 P.2d 801, 809-10 . | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Griffin v. Moseley
green
2 sentences2023Collins v. Itoh, 160 Mont. 461, 467-68 , 503 P.2d 36, 40 (1972). “[A] plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care ‘by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.’” Griffin v. Moseley, 2010 MT 132, ¶ 31 , 356 Mont. 393 , 234 P.3d 869 (internal citation omitted). ¶10 Greene contends that the District Court erred when it granted Dr. McDowell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because, “[u]nder the unique circumstances of this case, expert testimony was not required as to any 2023Collins v. Itoh, 160 Mont. 461, 467-68 , 503 P.2d 36, 40 (1972). “[A] plaintiff has the burden in a medical malpractice case of presenting evidence on the medical standard of care ‘by expert medical testimony unless the conduct complained of is readily ascertainable by a layman.’” Griffin v. Moseley, 2010 MT 132, ¶ 31 , 356 Mont. 393 , 234 P.3d 869 (internal citation omitted). ¶10 Greene contends that the District Court erred when it granted Dr. McDowell’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because, “[u]nder the unique circumstances of this case, expert testimony was not required as to any | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kalar v. MacCollum
green
2 sentences1976Kalar v. MacCollum, 17 Ariz.App. 176 , 496 P.2d 602 (1972). 1976Kalar v. MacCollum, 17 Ariz.App. 176 , 496 P.2d 602 (1972). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.