Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 N.C. 626 - High v. Ridgeway's Opticians

High v. Ridgeway's Opticians’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
13
states following
August 1984
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 1984 · most notably BD. OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. Spitz (1984), 59 Ill. 2d 508 - People Ex Rel. Watson v. House of Vision (1974)

27 state decisions — followed in 13 states

160196319701980decided

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 Town of Burnsville v. Boone · Travis v. Johnston · Kovacs v. Brewer · Logan v. Sprinkle · Wilson v. Robinson

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

  1. “* * * so long as the dispensing optician fabricates, fits and inserts contact lenses in the eyes in accordance with the prescriptions of examining physicians or oculists, and requires the patient to return to the examining physician or oculist in order that the writer of the prescription may determine whether or not the prescription has been properly filled and the contact lenses properly measured, fabricated and fitted, such optician is not engaged in the practice of optometry within the meaning of the statute.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A keratometer (or ophthalmometer) is a mechanical instrument or device used for measuring the curvature of the cornea of the human eye. As we interpret the evidence its use has no relation whatever to the methods used' by medical doctors, oculists or optometrists in the measuring of the powers of vision. There is no evidence on the record tending to show that there is any other instrument, device, or method in general use that is better adapted for the purpose of obtaining the curvature of the cornea of the human eye, which information is necessary to properly fabricate a contact lens for the eye.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““We think it is apparent from an examination of our statutes defining the practice of optometry and the business of a dispensing optician that the General Assembly has not expressly authorized either the optometrist or the optician to fit contact lenses to the human eye, but that the general terms of the statutes governing both are broad enough to authorize the optometrist to do so and to authorize the dispensing optician to do so upon prescription of a physician, oculist or optometrist.” (p. 629.)”
    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.