Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 Okla. 185 - Danner v. Chandler

Danner v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
February 2003
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2003

7 state decisions

30195119601970198019902000decided

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 Ridell v. Yoder · Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Jackson · Cole v. Harvey · Bartlett-Collins Glass Co. v. Washabaugh · Grooms v. Johnson

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

  1. ““In an action to recover damages for personal injury testimony of a physician as to his medical conclusions, based in part upon the statements made by the patient in giving a history of the case to the physician at the time of examination, though the examination was not made for the purpose of treating the patient but was made for the purpose of qualifying the physician to testify as an expert witness, is admissible in evidence.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “... [T]he correct rule, it would appear, should permit a physician to testify to a statement or narrative given him by his patient in relation to his condition, symptoms, sensations, and feelings, both past and present, when made in connection with his own opinion as to the cause of the injury, though the statement may not be received as independent evidence to establish the fact of the injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Expert testimony of- a physician, based on a physical examination of the patient, after action instituted by him to recover damages for an alleged personal injury, though made partly for the purpose of enabling the physician to testify as a witness, is not, on that account alone, incompetent, though constituting a fact which may materially affect 'his credibility.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.