Troj v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “"In support of this contention the appellant in his brief has cited and quoted from decisions from Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas, recognizing the rule that the opinion of a physician or surgeon as to the condition of an injured plaintiff, based wholly or in part on the history of the case as told to him by the latter on a personal examination, is inadmissible when the examination was made for the purpose of qualifying the physician or surgeon to testify as a medical witness. These cases are Devore v. Schaffter, 1954, 245 Iowa 1017 , 65 N.W.2d 553 , 51 A.L.R.2d 1041 , Preveden v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1937, 200 Minn. 523 , 274 N.W. 685 , and Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Wallace, Tex.Civ. App. 1934, 70 S.W.2d 832 . The reason underlying this rule was thus expressed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Preveden v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra [ 200 Minn. 523 , 274 N.W. 686 ]: "`The danger of admitting such testimony is apparent. When a doctor is consulted for the purpose of treatment, it may safely be assumed that the patient will tell the truth to the doctor since he is interested primarily in being cured. However, when he goes to a doctor for the purpose of qualifying the latter to testify, the natural tendency and inducement would be to the contrary.' "We recognize this exclusionary rule as sound when applied to the testimony of a physician or surgeon who can properly be categorized as an `examining physician' rather than a `treating physician.' We think, however, t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 So. 2d 117 - Bondy v. West