276 N.J. Super. 234 - DiTrolio v. Antiles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Non-joinder of claims or parties required to be joined by the entire controversy doctrine shall result in the preclusion of omitted claims to the extent required by the entire controversy doctrine, except as otherwise provided by R. 4:64-5 (foreclosure actions) and R. 4:67-4(a) (leave required for counterclaims or cross-claims in summary actions).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Unkert v. General Motors Corp. · DiTrolio v. Antiles

2. “a particularized evaluation is required to determine whether the policies sought to be fostered by the doctrine require its application as a preclusive principle when balanced against a litigant's right to tailor separate causes of action....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 281 N.J. Super. 180 - Milkap Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL CONST. · 280 N.J. Super. 154 - Baureis v. Summit Trust Co.

3. “1. Department of Urology meetings were held in the Chairman’s office, rather than in the hospital. Because departmental meetings are official hospital business, they should be conducted on the hospital premises. 2. Assigning supervision has apparently been at the sole discretion of the Chairman. A specific procedure for assigning supervision should be included in the Department rules, and all active members of the Department should be included to provide broadened assessment of competence. 3. The Committee is concerned that Dr. DiTrolio was not adequately informed and properly counseled at the time criticisms of his work apparently arose. It is extremely important that if alleged deficiencies exist, they be discussed openly and constructively with the physician under supervision at the time they occur, not only in fairness to the physician, but in order to maintain and improve patient care in an ongoing basis. 4. The Committee is concerned that specific criteria for advancing a physician from the Provisional Staff or removing supervision and observation do not exist. Each Department should establish such criteria, which should be included in Department Rules and Regulations and which should include a reasonable number of cases, by category, to be reviewed, particularly in departments doing technical procedures. The total period of supervision and observation should not be inordinately long and generally should be completed well before initial application for promotion to the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DiTrolio v. Antiles