Papke v. Harbert’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
4 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 229 Ill. 2d 393 - Wills v. Foster (2008), Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc. (2009)
4 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Hickman v. Taylor · Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'n · Smith v. Ford Motor Co. · 8 Cal. 4th 992 - Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center · 76 Ill. 2d 353 - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court has discretion in the wording and arrangement of its jury instructions and therefore we generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a particular instruction under the abuse of discretion standard. However, no court has discretion to give incorrect, misleading, conflicting, or confusing instructions: to do so constitutes reversible error if it is shown not only that the instructions were erroneous, but also that they were prejudicial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jacquot v. Rozum · State v. Cottier“A physician is not necessarily negligent because the physician errs in judgment or because efforts prove unsuccessful. The physician is negligent if the error in judgment or lack of success is due to a failure to perform any of the duties as defined in these instructions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because medicine is not an exact science and a physician in some instances may be presented with multiple methods of acceptable treatment for a particular condition, a physician must be allowed to exercise his or her professional judgment. Therefore, there may be instances in which a jury may be instructed that the physician’s choice of treatment from multiple acceptable treatments available is not necessarily negligence. Such instruction, however, cannot propose that the physician may commit mere error or mistake and not be liable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Veith v. O'BRIEN
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.