Lippold v. Kidd’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 1993 · most notably Langenfelder v. Thompson (1941), Spicer v. Benefit Ass'n of Railway Employees (1933)
64 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Kempsey v. McGinniss · Spain v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co. · Lehman v. Knott · Merriam v. Hamilton · Elliff v. Oregon R. & N. Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* ■ * * The expert witness is granted the privilege of expressing to the jury an opinion because his superior training enables him to arrive at a conclusion which is more likely to be sound than that of the average juror. But all opinions are based upon facts; generally the recipient of an opinion is at a loss to know what use he may advisedly make of an expert’s opinion unless he also knows what facts the expert took for granted when he formulated his conclusion.” See De Donato v. Wells, 328 Mo. 448 ( 41 S. W. (2d) 184 , 82 A. L. R. 1331).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * # It is true, that if the expert testifies to a conclusion based upon a premise with which he has become familiar through personal observation, the question which elicits from him the conclusion need not be a hypothetical one. In such an instance he supplies both premise and conclusion. But where he is unfamiliar with the premise and is asked to express a conclusion, a premise must be stated to him in a hypothetical form: Wigmore on Ev. (2d ed.) §676; Jones, Com. on Ev. (2ded.),§§ 1325 and 1333.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The law does not demand of a plaintiff that he establish with certainty the proximate cause of his injury. If the proof shows that a certain factor probably bore to injury the relationship of cause, the law is satisfied and denominates it the proximate cause.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clemens v. Smith
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.