Espiritu v. Derwinski’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Caluza v. Brown (1995), Grottveit v. Brown (1993)
3 federal appellate ·
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
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1310 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108
Relies on Frye v. United States · Colvin v. Derwinski · Manio v. Derwinski · Godwin v. Derwinski · Bratt v. Western Air Lines, Inc.
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (1923), quoted with approval the following: The rule is that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject-matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade as to require a previous habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire a knowledge of it. When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Grix v. Derwinski
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.