Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 Okla. 232 - Patrick & Tillman v. Matkin

Patrick & Tillman v. Matkin’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2001

13 state decisions

6019321940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““It is next contended that incompetent evidence was admitted over the objection of petitioners. In this contention we think there is merit. Dr. C. C. Shaw was called as a witness for claimant and testified, in substance, he had taken an X-ray photograph of claimant’s spinal column. He was permitted, over the objection of petitioners and without producing the X-ray photograph and without same having been offered in evidence, to testify that the X-ray showed a fracture of the left transverse process of the first lumbar vertebra, a light lateral displacement of the fifth lumbar vertebra; also a left curvature. “Petitioners objected to this evidence unless the X-ray be produced. The X-ray, of course, would be the best evidence as to what it showed. However, to the layman an X-ray means but little. Some of course are plain and easily understood, but ordinarily they' must be explained or interpreted by an expert; one having had experience and special training along that line. Dr. Shaw as an ex•pert was a competent witness to testify as to what the X-ray disclosed, but at the same time the petitioners were entitled to see and examine the picture for the purpose of cross-examination, and submit the same to other experts, if they so desired, for interpretation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.