88 N.C. App. 382 - White v. Hunsinger’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 106 N.C. App. 146 - Dunleavy v. YATES CONST. CO., INC. (1992), 138 N.C. App. 629 - Hylton v. Koontz (2000)
50 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 Vassey v. Burch · Rorrer v. Cooke · 38 N.C. App. 50 - Ballenger v. Crowell · 52 N.C. App. 234 - Lowery v. Newton · 72 N.C. App. 306 - Beaver v. Hancock
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]roof of proximate cause in a malpractice case requires more than a showing that a different treatment would have improved the patient's chances of recovery.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“G.S. 90-21.12 provides that [i]n any action for damages for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of medical, dental, or other health care, the defendant shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of facts is satisfied by the greater weight of the evidence that the care of such health care provider was not 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 at the time of the alleged act giving rise to the cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care and that the defendant's treatment proximately caused the injury. Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases. On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of establishing that no triable issue of fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden is then on the opposing party to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. If the opponent fails to forecast such evidence, then the trial court's entry of summary judgment is proper.”
1 later decision 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.