Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 F.2d 335 - Hamlet v. Troxler

Hamlet v. Troxler’s Empirical Analysis

235 F.2d 335 · 1956

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2011

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

601956196019701980199020002010decided

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 Glaser v. Rothschild · Pauckner v. Wakem · Acme Markets., Inc. v. Remschel · Pafford v. . Construction Co. · Lelenko v. Wilson H. Lee 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is a matter of common knowledge that all hospitals expect patients to have visitors, the number, duration and frequency of their visits depending upon the severity of the patient's illness. Certainly, near relatives, such as plaintiff in this case, have an implied invitation to visit. Such visits are for the mutual advantage of the patient, the visitor and the hospital. It is desirable from the standpoint of the hospital to permit, at the proper times and under proper conditions, visits to patients by relatives and friends. No one would patronize a hospital which did not permit relatives and friends to visit patients at proper times. * * *"”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “She [the plaintiff] had every right to expect a floor, and the fact that she took one step in an effort to reach what she thought was a light switch certainly does not impress us as constituting contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is ordinarily a question for the jury, and the burden of proving it is upon the defendant. We hold that, at the very least, the question of whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. The law of North Carolina clearly supports this conclusion. [Citing cases.]”
    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.