Tutton v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2010
7 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 Grant v. Touro Infirmary · 119 Ohio St. 422 - Ault v. Hall · 2 Smith & H. 235 - Tennessee Central Railway Co. v. Umenstetter · Barnett's Administrator v. Brand · Degen v. Bayman
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s charge on the vicarious liability count was erroneous and vacated the judgment against Dr. Patterson and remanded the cause for a new trial without considering whether the error was harmless. We are of the opinion that the trial court’s error, if any, was harmless error. T.C.A. § 20-9-502 provides as follows: Verdict applied to good account. [sic] — If any counts in a declaration are good, a verdict for entire damages shall be applied to such good counts. Tennessee courts have held on the basis of the above quoted statute that a trial court’s erroneous instruction on one count of a multicount suit is harmless error if its instructions as to the other counts were proper. Tennessee Cent. Ry. Co. v. Umenstetter, 155 Tenn. 235, 237 , 291 S.W. 452 (1927); Bloodworth v. Stuart, 221 Tenn. 567, 577 , 428 S.W.2d 786 (1968). “[A] general verdict approved by the trial judge is not vitiated by the absence of proof on one or more counts of the declaration if there is evidence to sustain the averments of a single count.” Alex v. Armstrong, 215 Tenn. 276, 286 , 385 S.W.2d 110 (1964); Valentine v. Conchemco, Inc., 588 S.W.2d 871, 877 (Tenn.App.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Mason
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.