Johnson v. Zerivitz’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2009
20 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 Wilhelm v. State of Maryland Traffic Safety Commission · Leizear v. Butler · Craig v. Chenoweth · State v. Gray
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“What we have just said applies, with equal force, to the question of causal connection between the accident and abdominal and back pains associated with the wife’s menses. This question, too, was a complicated one, presenting an involved and intricate medical inquiry, the solution of which was singularly suitable for determination by medical science. The symptoms here involved did not develop until several months after the accident, and, not only did no expert (nor did any lay witness except by implication) testify that the accident caused, or was in any way connected with, the complaints now under consideration, but the experts produced by the appellants testified either that they were unable to “correlate the physical findings to her menstrual period,” or that there, was no connection between “the abdominal pains complained of and the accident.” ... We hold that the trial court was also correct in refusing to submit this question to the jury. (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can be little doubt, we think, that a question involving the causes of emotional disturbances in a person sufficient to evoke, subconsciously, grossly exaggerated symptoms is an intricate and complex one, peculiarly appropriate for science to answer. To allow a jury of hymen, unskilled in medical science, to attempt to answer such a question would permit the rankest kind of guesswork, speculation and conjecture. We hold that the trial court correctly refused to submit the question here involved to the jury. (Emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There was no testimony sufficient to prove that the scalding in December 1962 was caused by the accident in ques-tion____ Under these circumstances expert medical testimony was again needed to establish a causal connection, but again, no such testimony was offered. ... [TJhe causal connection between any injury to the appellant’s leg and the accident in question was an intricate and involved medical question which could only have been established by medical testimony. (Emphasis supplied).”
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.