Weiss v. Goldfarb’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
January 2009
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company · Botta v. Brunner · Collopy v. Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary · Scafidi v. Seiler · Perna v. Pirozzi
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n ultimate outcome charge, based on the Charitable Immunity Act, in a negligence suit against a hospital is not only irrelevant but has the clear potential of being highly prejudicial. We are convinced that the prejudicial effect of such an instruction could be to shift to other defendants some percentage of negligence that the jury thought should rightfully be assessed against the hospital. We find persuasive the hospital's argument that informing a jury about a hospital's limited liability is akin to telling a jury whether a defendant is insured and the amount of coverage and is at least as prejudicial as telling it about insurance coverage. Such a prejudicial effect would be the antithesis of what Roman ... anticipated. [Id. at 481, 713 A. 2d 427 (emphasis added).]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could only be to persuade the jury to shift to the other defendants some amount for which it had concluded the hospital, and not the other defendants was justly responsible----[Tjhere is no reason to believe that a purpose of the statute was to shift any part of those consequences to other parties merely because they happen to be caught up in the same law suit as the hospital.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Roman decision was appropriate under New Jersey's modified comparative negligence statute because in order to make an informed apportionment of fault, the jury needed to know that plaintiff would not recover if that plaintiff was determined to be more negligent than a defendant from whom recovery was sought.”
1 later decision 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.