Johnson v. Whitehurst’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co. (1987), Jennings v. Burgess (1996)
51 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 Glover v. Texas General Indemnity Co. · Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Andrade · Wilson v. Scott · Strauss v. LaMark · Moore v. Lee
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Special Issue No. 1 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that John D. Menefee sustained a reaction from the drug Phenobarbital? Answer “We do” or “We do not.” Answer: We do If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 “We do,” and only in that event, then answer: Special Issue No. 2 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant, Dr. James T. Guehring, was negligent in commencing treatment of John D. Menefee with the drug Phenobarbital when he did commence such treatment? Answer “We do” or “We do not.” Answer: We do not If you have answered Special Issue No. 2 “We do,” and only in that event, then answer: Special Issue No. 3 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence, if any found by you in answer to Special Issue No. 2, was a proximate cause of injury and damages to Plaintiffs? Answer “We do” or “We do not.” Answer: _ If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 “We do,” and only in that event, then answer: Special Issue No. 4 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant, Dr. James T. Guehring, was negligent in continuing treatment of John D. Menefee with the drug Phenobarbital for the period of time that he did continue such treatment? Answer “We do” or “We do not.” Answer: We do not If you have answered Special Issue No. 4 “We do,” and only in that event, then answer: Special Issue No. 5 Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence, if any found by you in answer to Special Issue No.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Menefee v. Guehring“In Texas, a doctor must secure the authority or consent of his patient in order to legally perform medical procedures. Doctors generally have a duty to make reasonable disclosures to their patients of the risk of medical treatment. This duty is based on the right of every normal adult to determine what shall be done to his own body. Where the doctor has failed to reasonably inform his patient of the risks, the patient is unable to intelligently arrive at a decision regarding the treatment. Thus, the doctor is said to have failed to obtain the patient’s informed consent for the medical procedure. Wilson v. Scott, 412 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.1967); Anderson v. Hooker, 420 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1967, writ ref’d n.r.e.); See generally; Purdue, Medical Malpractice — Cause of action, 11 Hous.L.Rev. 2, 10 (1973).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The court shall submit such instructions and definitions as shall be proper to enable the jury to render a verdict [[Image here]] The court shall not in its charge comment directly on the weight of the evidence or advise the jury of the effect of their answers, but the court’s charge shall not be objectionable on the ground that it incidentally constitutes a comment on the weight of the evidence or advises the jury of the effect of their answers when it is properly a part of an instruction or definition.”
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.