Patrick v. . Treadwell’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably State v. Wilkerson (1978), Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co. (1963)
5 federal appellate · 41 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 United States v. Spaulding · State v. Hightower · Godfrey v. . Power Co. · Summerlin v. Carolina & North-Western Railroad · Ferebee v. Norfolk Southern Railroad
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Q. Mr. O’Neal, do you have an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to how many turns in the spin could have been safely made by Mr. Bobbitt from the altitude from which he started, 1800 feet? “A. Yes, I do. “Q. What is your opinion? “A. In my opinion, from the altitude that tbe maneuver was started, I would say that three turns were all that should have — that three turns would have been safe enough. “Q. From your observation of this airplane crash and from your knowledge and experience have you an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to the cause of this crash? “A. I have an opinion, yes, sir. “Q. What is that opinion? “A. My opinion is that the pilot of the airplane, Mr. Bobbitt, just tried to overdo it. “Q. What do you mean by overdoing it ? “A. Well, he was trying to give the public a thrill or what you might say he was trying to give them their money’s worth, as you might say.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It has been frequently stated by the courts that the testimony of an expert witness should be excluded when it invades the province of the jury, or when it expresses an opinion on the very issue before the jury. . . .” (222 N.C. mid. p. 4.) “But this rule is not inflexible, is subject to many exceptions, and is open to criticism.” (222 N.C. mid. p. 4.) “. . . and it is frequently relaxed in the admission of evidence as to ultimate facts in regard to matters of science, art, or skill, as may be seen by reference to Holder v. Lumber Co., 161 N.C. 177 ; Ferebee v. R. R., 167 N.C. 290 ; Barrow v. Ins. Co., 169 N.C. 572 ; Moore v. Assurance Corp., 173 N.C. 532 , and to many other cases.” (222 N.C. top p. 5.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““However, while the tendency is to liberalize the rule as to this class of opinion evidence, and to hold it admissible when it tends to aid the jury in the search for truth, * * * even when the opinion of the expert based upon peculiar knowledge, skill and experience is given as to the ultimate question in issue, this rule should not be relaxed to the extent of opening the door to the statement of an evidential fact in issue beyond the knowledge of the witness under the guise of an expert opinion.””
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.