Hill v. Leschber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 17 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the failure of Dr. David Heinrich to remove the broken piece of the root from the lower left molar from the extraction area of Mrs. Weeks’ jaw was the exercise by Dr. David Heinrich of same degree of care and skill that other general dentists would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances in the City of Victoria, Texas, and vicinity thereof, in the exercise of ordinary care for the welfare of a patient such as Mrs. Frances Weeks? Answer: ‘We Do’ or ‘We Do Not’ WE DO NOT If you have answered the foregoing Special Issue No. 17 ‘We do,’ and only in that event, then answer: SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 18 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such failure, if any, was a proximate cause of the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff Mrs. Frances Weeks? Answer ‘We do,’ or ‘We do not.’ Answer: (not answered)” * * * * * * “SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 26 What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence, will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff, Mrs. Frances Weeks, for the reasonable value of such necessary medical and hospital expenses incurred by plaintiffs in connection with the removal of the tooth fragment, or root tip, from the extraction area of the lower left molar, as a direct and proximate result of the leaving of such fragment in Mrs. Frances Weeks’ body? Answer by stating the amount in dollars and cents, if any. $13”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weeks v. Heinrich