Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 N.C. App. 325 - Butler v. Berkeley

25 N.C. App. 325 - Butler v. Berkeley’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
4
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Sard v. Hardy (1977), Hook Ex Rel. Estate of Summers v. Rothstein (1984)

28 state decisions

10019751980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Schloendorff v. Society of the New York Hospital · Canterbury v. Spence · Page v. Sloan

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

  1. “[t]o adopt the [“material-risk” standard] would result in requiring every doctor to spend much unnecessary time in going over with every patient every possible effect of any proposed treatment. The doctor should not have to practice his profession with the knowledge that every consultation with every patient with respect to future treatment contains a potential lawsuit and his advice and suggestions must necessarily be phrased with the possible defense of a lawsuit in mind. This would necessarily result in the doctor’s inability to give the best interest of his patient primary importance. Butler v. Berkeley, 25 N.C.App. 325, 342 , 213 S.E.2d 571, 581-82 (1975).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““A verified complaint may be treated as an affidavit if it (1) is made on personal knowledge, (2) sets forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and (3) shows affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify as to the matters stated therein.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “has the burden of showing that there is no triable issue of fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    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.