Grantham v. Vanderzyl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

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

1. “[d]amages are [an element] of a claim to vindicate a legal right.”

   20 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Lumber Co. v. City of Northport · Hammock v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

2. ““In order to present a cognizable claim under the narrowly construed tort of outrage, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct 1) was intentional or reckless; 2) was extreme and outrageous; and 3) caused emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. See Thomas v. BSE Indus. Contractors, Inc., 624 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Ala.1993). “Generalized apprehensions and fears do not rise to the level of the extreme, severe emotional distress required to support a claim alleging the tort of outrage. See Thomas, 624 So.2d at 1045 .... “Grantham asserts that she suffered a threat to her life; that that threat caused her extreme emotional distress; and that that distress merits relief under a tort-of-outrage claim. However, there must be some basis in fact for her fear of developing a disease from exposure to the patient’s blood. The mere fear of contracting a disease, without actual exposure to it, cannot be sufficient to cause the level of emotional distress necessary for this cause of action. In actuality, Grantham was never in danger of contracting a communicable disease as the result of the operating-room incident. Every blood test to which Grantham has submitted has returned a negative result. There is no evidence that the patient carried a communicable disease. Grantham even admits in her deposition testimony that she has no reason to believe she presently has any disease contracted as a result of her exposure to the patient’s blood. Th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Morris v. City of Colorado Springs · Laurel v. Prince