Dennis v. Prisock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 34 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"However, her evidence failed to connect or trace her back injuries with requisite certainty to an efficient cause for which the defendants are responsible. In fact, the great weight of the evidence indicates that there were at least five other accidents in which Mrs. Prisock was involved which were of a considerably more serious nature; and that at the most she received in this particular accident of July 6, 1959 only nominal damages." 254 Miss. at 582 , 181 So.2d at 127-128 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dennis v. Prisock · Brake v. Speed

2. “(w)here a patient voluntarily goes into detail regarding the nature of her injuries and either testifies as to what the particular physician did or said while in attendance, or relates what she communicated to the physician, the privilege is waived, and the adverse party may examine the physician.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 551 So. 2d 178 - SESSUMS BY SESSUMS v. McFall · 799 So. 2d 874 - Hopkins v. State

3. “Dr. Dyer, plaintiff's witness, was the only doctor who testified. Over objection, he stated as his opinion that Mrs. Prisock sustained the disc injury to her back in the collision involving appellant's truck on July 6, 1959. Yet he had no knowledge of plaintiff's fall down a flight of stairs on March 19, 1959, and the surrounding facts. He did not know she fell in the summer of 1960, of the automobile collision of September 10, 1960, and of a fall on April 24, 1961, or of the injuries resulting from them. She told him about the September 1, 1959, accident, but he did not treat her for it, although he prescribed some sedatives over a period of time. His reason for concluding that the July 6, 1959, collision caused the ruptured disc was "that the first time I saw this patient with a back injury was at that time." He thought he was thus justified in presuming that was her original injury. However, he did not know that she was wearing a back brace after March 19, 1959, and it would change his opinion considerably if the brace was for a back injury. The first time he x-rayed Mrs. Prisock's lower back was in February 1962. 181 So.2d at 127 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stratton v. Webb