Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 NC 259 - Jackson v. Joyner

Jackson v. Joyner’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
7
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2001

1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

90195219601970198019902000decided

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 Hayes v. . Elon College · Nash v. . Royster · Heuser v. Heuser · Jackson v. Mountain Sanitarium & Asheville Agr. Sch. · Byrd v. Marion General Hospital

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

  1. “* * * The Court instructs you that there is no evidence tending to show that Edgar A. Hanson or any of the nurses who attended Judith Lane Jackson was an employee of the defendant, Dr. T. H. Joyner. The Court instructs you further that the negligence on the part of Hanson, if any, and the negligence on the part of any of the nurses, if any, would not be deemed in law, the negligence of the defendant, Dr. Joyner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Instead of asking the witness whether in his opinion the treatment outlined in the hypothetical question constitutes”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Q. Doctor, will you please define to the jury what you mean by `meticulous' care? A. Well, in my estimation * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.