Taylor v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably McKissick v. Frye (1994), State v. Peoples (1980)
53 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 Grohusky v. Atlas Assurance Co. · Temple v. Continental Oil Co. · Deemer v. Reichart · Welch v. Clampitt · Ladlie v. American Glycerin Co.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(b) If the witness is testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the witness at the hearing and (2) within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness. “(d) Testimony in the form of opinions or inferences otherwise admissible under this article is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue or issues to be decided by the trier of the fact.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The qualifications of an expert witness and the admissibility of his testimony are matters within the sound discretion of the trial judge. This principle of law has been previously determined and clearly stated. (Grohusky v. Atlas Assurance Co., 195 Kan. 626 , 408 P. 2d 697 .)””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(d) Use of depositions. At the trial . . . any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions: “(2) The deposition of a party . . . may be used by an adverse party for ^any purpose. . . . “(4) If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mesecher v. Cropp
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.