Lockwood v. McCaskill’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably Sharpe v. Worland (1999), Ridge Community Investors, Inc. v. Berry (1977)
46 state decisions
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 Sims ex rel. Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance · Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. · Capps v. Lynch · Ballard v. City of Charlotte · WALDRON BUICK COMPANY v. General Motors Corp.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may compel the physician or surgeon to disclose communications and information obtained by him “if in his (the judge’s) opinion the same is necessary to a proper administration of justice.” In such case the judge shall enter upon the record his finding that the testimony is necessary to a proper administration of justice. [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“any information which [the physician] may have acquired in attending a patient in a professional character, and which information was necessary to enable him to prescribe for such patient as a physician, or to do any act for him as a surgeon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In our view, the proviso in G.S. 8-53 does not authorize a superior court judge, based on the circumstance that he is then presiding in the county in which the action is pending, to strike down the statutory privilege in respect of any and all matters concerning which the physician might be asked at a deposition hearing. Doubtless, in practically all personal injury actions the defendant would deem it advisable, if permitted to do so, to examine before a commissioner or notary public in advance of the trial the physician(s) of the injured party to `evaluate the case' and `to prepare his defense.' Obviously, if this course were permitted, the privilege created by the statute would be substantially nullified. This practice, if considered desirable, should be accomplished by amendment or repeal of the statute."”
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.