Ruud v. Hendrickson’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
December 1977
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hess v. Lowrey · Barfield v. South Highlands Infirmary · MacDonald v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Byers v. Railroad · Scullin v. Vining
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although it is well settled that medical works are not admissible as substantive evidence for the reason that the authors are not under oath nor subject to cross-examination, yet where a physician testifying as an expert bases his opinion, in whole or in part, on such works, he may be questioned on cross-examination as to views differing from his m books which he recognises as authority, although it may incidentally place the views of the authors before the jury. Wittenberg v. Onsgard, 78 Minn. 342 , 81 N. W. 14 , 47 L. R. A. 141; Landro v. G. N. Ry. Co. 117 Minn. 306 , 135 N. W. 991 , Ann. Cas. 1913D, 244; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 141 Minn. 154 , 169 N. W. 541 .” (Italics supplied.)”
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.