Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 N.J. 638 - Frame v. Kothari

Frame v. Kothari’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall (1994), Blinzler v. Marriott International, Inc. (1996)

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 68 state decisions

5701989199020002010decided

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 Dillon v. Legg · Amodio v. Cunningham · 39 Cal. 3d 159 - Ochoa v. Superior Court · Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark · Portee v. Jaffee

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

  1. “shocking events that do not occur in the daily lives of most people.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Although variously expressed, the common thread running through these cases is that a misdiagnosis normally does not create the kind of horrifying scene that is a prerequisite to recovery. Rarely will a member of the patient's family contemporaneously observe the immediate consequence of the defendant's misdiagnosis and even more rarely will the results of the misdiagnosis be the injury or death of a loved one contemplated by the gruesome scene portrayed in Porter .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"In an appropriate case, if a family member witnesses the physician's malpractice, observes the effect of the malpractice on the patient, and immediately connects the malpractice with the injury, that may be sufficient to allow recovery for the family member's emotional distress. Such an event could be shocking." 560 A.2d at p. 681 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.