Burns v. Wannamaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he Court of Appeals will presume that an affirmance by a Circuit Court of a magistrate’s judgment was made upon the merits where the testimony is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the magistrate and there are no facts that show the affirmance was influenced by an error of law [Bagnal v. Southern Express Co., 106 S.C. 395, 400 , 91 S.E. 334, 335-36 (1917); Stanford v. Cudd, 93 S.C. 367, 369-70 , 76 S.E. 986, 986-87 (1913); see 5B C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1817 at 152-53 (1958)]....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hadfield v. Gilchrist · Bowers v. Thomas

2. “Although there are no cases in South Carolina which address the issue of whether a dentist may enlarge his responsibilities and contract to fulfill specific assurances, we know of no reason why he should not be allowed to do so. See Preston v. Thompson, 53 N.C.App. 290 , 280 S.E.2d 780, 781 (1981), cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 304 N.C. 392 , 285 S.E.2d 833 (1981). A dentist should be as free as any other person who offers to perform skilled services to contract as he sees fit. If a dentist chooses, he should be able to warrant the results of his treatment. Guilmet v. Campbell, 385 Mich. 57 , 188 N.W.2d 601 , 43 A.L.R.3d 1194 (1971). Indeed, it appears well settled elsewhere that a physician or other healer may bind himself by an express contract to obtain specific results by either treatment or an operation. See 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers § 161 at 292-93 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holy Loch Distributors, Inc. v. Hitchcock

3. “As is readily apparent, Section 18-7-170 confers authority upon the Circuit Court to reverse a magistrate’s findings of fact when exercising appellate jurisdiction in an appeal from a magistrate’s judgment. See Dingle v. Northwestern R. Co., 112 S.C. 390 , 99 S.E. 828 (1919); Redfearn v. Douglass, 35 S.C. 569 , 15 S.E. 244 (1892); cf. Vacation Time of Hilton Head Island, Inc. v. Kiwi Corp., [ 280 S.C. 232 ], 312 S.E.2d 20 (Ct.App.1984)(where the Circuit Court reversed a magistrate’s findings of fact in an ejectment action).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hadfield v. Gilchrist