Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 ILLAPP 484 - Netcher v. Bernstein

Netcher v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis

1903

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 1960
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1960

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

501903191019201930194019501960decided

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 Shevalier v. Seager · Bradley v. Palmer · Illinois Central Railroad v. Latimer · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Clough · West Chicago Street Railroad v. Lieserowitz

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

  1. ““Any objection made to this question, either of form or of substance, was waived by the subsequent conduct of appellants. [ 7 ] Dr. H. N. Moyer was called by them as an expert witness. In his examination they asked him: ‘Q. Now you heard the hypothetical question which was put this morning, * * *? A. Yes, I heard it read. ‘Q. Do you recall it well enough so that you can give us an opinion upon it? A. Yes, I think I have reasonably good recollection of it.’ “Thereupon, in a response to a further question, the doctor gave his opinion based upon the supposed facts contained in that hypothetical question. The same course was pursued in the examination in chief of Dr. Learning, an expert witness called by appellants. “It does not require the citation of authorities to establish the proposition that appellants, having adopted and used this identical hypothetical question in the examination of their expert witnesses, will not be heard to say in this court that its use by ap-pellee [ 8 ] was reversible error.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.