Lawrence v. Nutter’s Empirical Analysis
203 F.2d 540 · 1953
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably O'Brien v. Angley (1980), 18 Ariz. App. 75 - Purcell v. Zimbelman (1972)
12 federal appellate · 11 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 Davis v. United States · Reilly v. Pinkus · Nardis Sportswear v. Simmons · United States v. 25.406 Acres of Land · Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Francis
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A] substantial body of authority ... holds that when a witness is testifying as an expert, it is competent to test his knowledge on cross-examination by reading to him extracts from scientific authorities, which he recognizes as standard upon the subject matter involved, and then ask him whether he agrees or disagrees with what has been read.... This view has met the approval of the more recent authorities.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We need go no further in the pending case than to hold that the attention of an expert may be called in the course of cross examination to statements in conflict with his testimony contained in relevant scientific works which he recognizes as authoritative. This holding accords . . . with the more liberal view taken in the recent cases ....”
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.