Shaughnessy v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 1986 · most notably Langenfelder v. Thompson (1941), 2 Ill. 2d 590 - Shell Oil Co. v. Industrial Commission (1954)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 Greinke v. Chicago City Railway Co. · Globe Accident Insurance v. Gerisch · Camp Point Manufacturing Co. v. Ballou · Pyle v. Pyle · Elgin, Aurora & Southern Traction Co. v. Wilson
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Counsel for appellee attempt to distinguish this case from those cited in the opinion just referred to (Greinke v. Chicago City Railway Co., 234 Ill. 564 , 85 N. E. 327 ), on the ground that in this case appellee was first asked on the witness stand if ihe answers she had given the physicians during these tests were true, and she replied that they were; that, in the cases where expert testimony based upon subjective symptoms was hold improper, such opinions were based upon the unsworn statements as to such subjective symptoms. Counsel misapprehend the basis of such decisions. The law1 admits in evidence the declarations of the injured party as to the physical condition given to a physician during treatment because it is presumed that the injured .person will not falsify in his statements made to the physician when he expects and hopes to receive medical aid; but no such presumption arises where he is examined by an expert for the purpose of giving evidence in a case about to he tried. The reasons for this distinction are fully set forth in tire Greinke Case, supra, and must control here.””
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.