Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Associates (2002)

green · 41 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 12 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 12

Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200220142026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, P.C. (2008)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

(Punctuation and footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied.) Johnson, supra, 275 Ga. at 241-242 (1), (2); see Davis v. Virginian R.

green Courtesy Ford, Inc. v. Todd Campbell (2021)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Thus, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying defendant’s motion.”), overruled, in part, on other grounds by Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 242 (1) n.8 ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002). 6 Roberts v. Forte Hotels, 227 Ga. App. 471, 475 ( 489 SE2d 540 ) (1997) (citation and punctuation omitted). 5

green Cope v. Evans (2014)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241 ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted), overruled on other grounds, Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, 285 Ga. 667, 669 ( 681 SE2d 152 ) (2009).

green Murphy v. Varner (2008)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs., 275 Ga. 240, 242 (1) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002).

green Jones v. State (2004)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

Bogan v. State, supra. Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 243 (3) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002).

green Byrd v. Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc. (2002)

Rule Authority · Ga. Ct. App.

OCGA § 51-1-27; Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241 (1) *289 ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002); McDaniel v. Hendrix, 260 Ga. 857, 859 (1) ( 401 SE2d 260 ) (1991).

green Zwiren v. Thompson (2003)

Cited (see also) · Ga. · signal: see also · 4 citations in this opinion

See also Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241, n. 2 , 563 S.E.2d 431 (2002).

green Griffin v. Bankston (2009)

Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Griffin, 295 Ga. App. at 390-391 (2), citing Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241-242 (1), 242-243 (2), 243 (3) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002).

green Griffin v. Bankston (2008)

Cited · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Johnson v. *391 Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241-242 (1), 242-243 (2), 243 (3) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002); Condra v. Atlanta Orthopaedic Group, 292 Ga. App. 276, 278-279 (1), 279 (2) ( 664 SE2d 281 ) (2008), cert, granted, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 910 (Case No. S08G1833, Oct. 6, 2008).

green West v. BREAST CARE SPECIALISTS, LLC (2008)

Cited (see also) · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 241-242 (1) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002) (to establish medical malpractice, it is axiomatic that evidence “must show a violation of the degree of care and skill required of a physician”) (punctuation and footnote omitted); Cannon v. Jeffries, 250 Ga. App. 371, 372 (1) ( 551 SE2d 777 ) (2001) (in medical malpractice claim plaintiff must show doctor breached duty by failing “to exercise the requisite degree of skill an…

green H.D. McCondichie Properties v. Georgia Department of Transportation (2006)

Cited (see also) · Ga. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assoc., 275 Ga. 240, 243 (3) ( 563 SE2d 431 ) (2002) (trial court properly prohibited cross-examination on irrelevant matters). 3.

green Palandjian v. Foster (2006)

Cited (see also) · Mass. · signal: see also

See also Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Assocs., 275 Ga. 240, 241-242 (2002) (because applicable standard of care derived from medical profession generally, “questions aimed at determining how the expert would have personally elected to treat the patient are irrelevant”); 5 D.W.

because applicable standard of care derived from medical profession generally, “questions aimed at determining how the expert would have personally elected to treat the patient are irrelevant”