Caputa v. Antiles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Clearly, the defendant excluded observation from the treatment alternatives offered to plaintiff because he thought it was not as good an option. Replete throughout defendant’s testimony is the theme that he made a judgment that surgery was the best option for the plaintiff and, therefore, surgery was the only option that he informed plaintiff about. That the doctor “may have in passing hinted on the fact” that observation existed as an alternative does not, as a matter of law, “ ‘impart information [that] the patient has every right to expect,’ as well as [fulfill the doctor’s] duty of ‘reasonable disclosure of the choices with respect to proposed therapy and the dangers inherently and potentially involved.’ ” Largey, supra, 110 N.J. at 211 , 540 A.2d 504 (quoting Canterbury v. Spence, supra, 464 F.2d at 782 ). Thus, the jury should have been instructed, that as to the initial procedure, plaintiff had established that defendant failed to offer the alternative treatment of observation without intervention and thereby breached his duty to obtain plaintiffs informed consent. [Id. at 137, 686 A.2d 356 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kimmel v. Dayrit

2. “Regarding the trial judge’s refusal to grant a new trial, it is axiomatic that such a ruling “shall not be reversed unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law.” R. 2:10-1. To determine if a miscarriage of justice occurred, an appellate court defers to the trial court in regards to the “intangibles” of the ease, including credibility, demeanor, and the general feel of the case, but otherwise makes its own independent determination of whether a miscarriage of justice occurred. [citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kimmel v. Dayrit

3. “(1) the physician failed to comply with the applicable standard for disclosure; (2) the undisclosed risk occurred and harmed the plaintiff; (3) a reasonable person under the circumstances would not have consented and submitted to the operation or surgical procedure had he or she been so informed; and (4) the operation or surgical procedure was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 320 N.J. Super. 453 - Teilhaber v. Greene