Schultz v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Additionally, the court questioned the validity of using a series of tests designed for one purpose (designing cars) for a different purpose (assessing a threshold of applied force for injury in rear-end car accident). Specifically, the court addressed the circumstances of the tests that did not correspond with the circumstances of a rear-end car accident. It noted the fact that the statistical sample in the tests was “extremely low,” and there were “no controls among and between the experiments with regard to age, physical conditions [and] actual position of the body.” Also, the court noted the “expectation factor” of knowing one is going to be hit, as opposed to being unaware of an impending collision. The court concluded that there “is great controversy in the field about the quality and comparability of these tests.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Adamscheck v. American Family Mutual Insurance · Stedman v. Cooper

2. “the fact ... the witness cannot sup port his or her opinion with certainty goes only to the weight to be given to the opinion and not to its admissibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Davis · Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp.