Tindal v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2016
13 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 Scafidi v. Seiler · Conklin v. Weisman · Largey v. Rothman · 96 N.J. Super. 242 - Kaplan v. Haines · Kaplan v. Haines
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“judge charged on negligence separately from proximate cause and repeatedly explained that the jurors would not consider the latter unless they found `that either or both of the defendants in this case have departed from the accepted medical standard' or `were negligent.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“erroneous instructions on proximate cause [did] not require a new trial [on liability] because the verdict and judgment were premised on a finding of no negligence and, based on the evidence, the two issues were entirely distinct and separate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he general rule [is] that issues in negligence cases should be retried together unless the issue unaffected by error is entirely distinct and separable from the other issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.