Bitzan v. Parisi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general rule followed by most all courts is that if the injury is "objective" and it is plainly apparent from the very nature of the injury that it will cause pain ... in the future, expert testimony is not required... . [I]f the injury is not obvious, nor the symptoms readily apparent, it is regarded as "subjective", and medical testimony is generally necessary to support a claim of future damages. Id. at 581.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 368 So. 2d 614 - Sullivan v. Price

2. “There was [prejudicial] error ... in giving Instruction No. 5 as to elements of future damage and loss for disability, pain, and suffering, and loss of earnings which were based entirely on subjective complaints, as opposed to any substantial medical testimony which would with reasonable medical probability support said future elements of damage . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Wash. 2d 116 - Bitzan v. Parisi

3. “and it is plainly apparent from the very nature of the injury that it will cause pain ... in the future, expert testimony is not required... . [I]f the injury is not obvious, nor the symptoms readily apparent, it is regarded as”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 368 So. 2d 614 - Sullivan v. Price