Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 N.C. 172 - Jackson v. Bumgardner

Jackson v. Bumgardner’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

257
cited by 257 later decisions
14
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 241 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 257 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 147 N.C. App. 52 - Oberlin Capital, L.P. v. Slavin (2001), Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co. (1992)

3 federal appellate · 241 state decisions — followed in 14 states

15601986199020002010decided

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 Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Eisenstadt v. Baird · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Logarusic v. United States · Sutton v. Duke

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

  1. “Dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) when the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports plaintiff's claim; (2) when the complaint on its face reveals the absence of fact sufficient to make a good claim; (3) when some fact disclosed in the complaint necessarily defeats plaintiff's claim.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “life, even life with severe defects, cannot be an injury in the legal sense.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Defendant has failed to make a critical distinction between the types of claims involved in Azzolino and in the instant case. Mrs. Azzolino did not complain about becoming pregnant; she complained about having a child with certain defects. In reaching its result in Azzoli-no, the Court stressed the fact that defendant Dingfelder was not responsible for the existence of either little Michael Azzolino or his defects. Id. at 111, 337 S.E.2d at 534 . (“It should be reemphasized here that the plaintiffs only allege that the defendants negligently caused or permitted an already conceived and defective fetus not to be aborted. The plaintiffs do not allege that the defendants in any way directly caused the genetic defect. Therefore, the only damages the plaintiffs allege they have suffered arise, if at all, from the failure of the defendants to take steps which would have led to abortion of the already existing and defective fetus.”) Here, what plaintiff sought was a means to avoid pregnancy itself. The injury she alleges is that she became pregnant. She also alleges that defendant’s negligence contributed to her pregnancy. In arguing that plaintiff has alleged no cognizable damages under Azzolino, defendant is equating the condition of the pregnant plaintiff with the life of her child. Rather, it is the fact of the pregnancy as a medical condition that gives rise to compensable damages and completes the elements for a claim of negligence, (emphasis in original).”
    2 later decisions 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.