Cohenour v. Smart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 15 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... While there is authority to the contrary, we are committed to the rule that opinion evidence, such as that given by the plaintiff's expert witnesses, that a certain cause 'might', 'could or 'possibly' did or would bring about a certain result is competent and may have some probative value ... The value of such evidence is ordinarily for the trier of the facts. But where such evidence is not corroborated or supplemented by other evidence, and where the fact necessary to be established must be proved by testimony of a qualified expert, such evidence, standing alone, is generally held to be insufficient to make out a prima facie case.... On the question of whether the accident 'could cause the curvature of the spine, there was a disagreement between the chiropractors testifying for the plaintiff and the medical doctors testifying for the defendant, but it was for the jury to resolve the conflict and to give such weight to the testimony of each of the expert witnesses as it deemed proper.... We are of the opinion, and hold, that the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether the injuries complained of by the plaintiff, including the curvature of the spine, were caused by the accident. True, as above stated, the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses that said injuries 'could have been caused by the accident, standing alone, would not have been sufficient to submit to the jury the question of whether the curvature of the spine and the discomfort a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Hines

2. “... [IJt is incumbent upon the plaintiff, under the facts of this case, to prove not only that the accident could have caused the injury, but that it probably did ... authorities clearly hold that medical testimony as to the possibility of a causal relation between a given accident or injury and the subsequent impaired physical condition of the person injured is not sufficient, standing alone, to establish such a relation. 'Testimony as to possibility' is said to mean testimony in which the witness asserts that the accident or injury 'may have' or 'could have' caused, or 'possibly did cause the subsequent physical condition, or that a given physical condition 'might have, 'may have, 'could have, or 'possibly did' result from a previous accident or injury-testimony, that is, which is confined to words indicating the probability or likelihood of its existence. 17”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Hines

3. ““1. Where the evidence of the expert witness is only that an accident could’ have been the cause of an injury, it is not sufficient unless the witness goes further and says that it was also the probable cause of the injury. “2. Physician’s opinion that a certain occurrence might, could, or would produce a certain result is no more than an assurance that such a result was scientifically possible and does not alone constitute substantial evidence that such occurrence or condition did cause the result where the evidence does not exclude all other causes, and no layman could know or have any reasonable basis for an inference regarding cause.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Delk v. Gill