Pine v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 1996
16 state decisions
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 Shawnee-Tecumseh Traction Co. v. Griggs · Hines v. Dean · Jones v. Sechtem · City of Pawhuska v. Crutchfield · Forrest E. Gilmore Co. v. Hurry
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * ‘There are two rules by which the question of future pain and suffering may be submitted to the jury: If the injury is objective, and it is plainly apparent, from the very natur.e of the injury, that the injured person must of necessity undergo pain and suffering in the future, then most certainly the plaintiff would hot be required to prove a fact so plainly evident, and upon making proof of such an objective injury the jury may infer pain and suffering in the ' future. * * * Where the injury is subjective, and of such a nature that "laymen cannot, with reasonable certainty, know whether or not there will be future pain and suffering, then, in order to warrant an instruction on that point, and to authorize a jury to return a verdict for future pain and suffering, there must be offered evidence by expert witnesses, learned in human anatomy, who can testify, either from a personal examination or knowledge of the history of the case, or from a hypothetical question based on the facts, that the plaintiff, with reasonable certainty, may be expected to experience future pain and suffering, as a result of the injury proven.’ “In Hines v. Dean, 96 Okl. 107 , 220 P. 860, 862 , this court, in the body of the opinion, said: ‘While the testimony, shows that at the time of the trial the plaintiff still suffered some pain at times, there is no testimony from which it can be determined whether the pain and suffering would continue, and, if so, for how long; neither does it appear fr”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Collins v. Windham
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.