Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 N.C. App. 627 - Estrada v. Jaques

70 N.C. App. 627 - Estrada v. Jaques’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
2
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 131 N.C. App. 242 - First Atlantic Management, Corp. v. Dunlea Realty, Co. (1998), Concrete Service Corp. v. Investors Group, Inc. (1986)

113 state decisions

37019841990200020102020decided

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 Foman v. Davis · Thompson v. United States · Alexander v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development · Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc. · Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc.

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

  1. “(a) No recovery shall be allowed against any health care provider upon the grounds that the health care treatment was rendered without the informed consent of the patient or the patient’s spouse, parent, guardian, nearest relative or other person authorized to give consent for the patient where: (1) The action of the health care provider in obtaining the consent of the patient or other person authorized to give consent for the patient was in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the same health care profession with similar training and experience situated in the same or similar communities; and (2) A reasonable person from the information provided by the health care provider under the circumstances, would have a general understanding of the procedures or treatments which are recognized and followed by other health care providers engaged in the same field of practice in the same or similar communities; or (3) A reasonable person, under all the surrounding circumstances, would have undergone such treatment or procedure had he been advised by the health care provider in accordance with the provisions of subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection. (b) A consent which is evidenced in writing and which meets the foregoing standards, and which is signed by the patient or other authorized person, shall be presumed to be a valid consent. This presumption, however, may be subject to rebuttal only upon proof that such consent was obtained by fraud, deception or mis”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The exceptions are that notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal the trial judge retains jurisdiction over the cause (1) during the session in which the judgment appealed from was rendered and (2) for the purpose of settling the case on appeal. The qualification to the general rule is that ‘the trial judge, after notice and on proper showing, may adjudge the appeal has been abandoned’ and thereby regain jurisdiction of the cause. [Citation omitted.]””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[R]uling on the interlocutory nature of appeals is properly a matter for the appellate division, not the trial court.”
    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.