Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 NY2D 341 - People v. Eulo

People v. Eulo’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
6
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Hake v. Manchester Township (1985), State v. Guess (1998)

25 state decisions

1601984199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “If victims’ deaths were prematurely pronounced due to a doctor’s negligence, the subsequent procedures [removal of organs for transplant] may have been a cause of death, but that negligence would not constitute a superseding cause of death relieving defendants of liability. If, however, the pronouncements of death were premature due to the gross negligence or the intentional wrongdoing of doctors, as determined by a grave deviation from accepted medical practices or disregard for legally cognizable criteria for determining death, the intervening medical procedure would interrupt the chain of causation and become the legal cause of death. Thus, the propriety of the medical procedures is integral to the question of causation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[W]hen a determination has been made according to accepted medical standards that a person has suffered an irreversible cessation of heartbeat and respiration, or, when these functions are maintained solely by extraordinary mechanical means, an irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, no life traditionally recognized by the law is present in that body.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(a) An individual who has sustained either: (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. (b) A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.