Campbell v. Vinjamuri’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 1274 · 1994
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2019
11 federal appellate · 7 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 133 Ill. 2d 540 - Patzner v. Baise · O'Dell v. Hercules Inc. · Johnson v. Houser · Farmland Industries v. Frazier-Parrott Commodities, Inc. · Ward v. Epting
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“His test failures have no clear connection to his knowledge and experience of the matter of which he was testifying (whether or not he met the standard of care in his treatment of Campbell). It is sufficient that the jury was given the information that Vinjamuri was not board certified in his speciality. The reason for his lack of certification is of limited significance. To hold otherwise we would have to conclude that admission of Vinjamuri’s test failures would probably have led to a verdict for the plaintiff. Fiowever, the jury could legitimately only use the information to impeach Vinjamuri’s statement where he asserts he met the appropriate standard of care. Given the additional expert testimony presented by other defense witnesses on whether Vinjamuri met [the] standard of care, we cannot conclude that a jury would be significantly swayed by casting doubt on Vinjamuri’s statement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would be improper for the jury to ... conclude that because a physician was unable to pass his board exams, he was negligent on a specific occasion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[t]he mere tender of an alternative instruction without objecting to some specific error in the trial court's charge or explaining why the proffered instruction better states the law does not preserve the error for appeal.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.