137 N.C. App. 274 - Whitaker v. Akers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] motion [for judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is essentially a renewal of an earlier motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, if the motion for directed verdict could have been properly granted, then the subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should also be granted. In considering any motion for directed verdict, the trial court must view all the evidence that supports the non-movant’s claim as being true and that evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-movant, giving to the non-movant the benefit of every reasonable inference that may legitimately be drawn from the evidence with contradictions, conflicts, and inconsistencies being resolved in the non-movant’s favor. This Court has also held that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is cautiously and sparingly granted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 N.C. App. 203 - Jones v. Harrelson and Smith Contractors, LLC · 192 N.C. App. 114 - Dogwood Development and Management Co. v. White Oak Transport Co., Inc.

2. “[i]t is insufficient to show the mere continuity of the physician/patient relationship. Rather, the subsequent treatment must be related to the original act, omission[,] or failure to act that gave rise to the original claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 N.C. App. 324 - Webb v. Hardy · 195 N.C. App. 785 - McKoy v. Beasley

3. “Under North Carolina General Statute, section 90-21.12: In any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health care, the defendant shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of the facts is satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the care of such health care provider was not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 202 N.C. App. 707 - Hawkins v. SSC HENDERSONVILLE OPERATING CO.