McMunn v. Tatum’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson (1992), Wright v. Kaye (2004)
68 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 New Jersey Department of Corrections v. Nash · Virginia Real Estate Commission v. Bias · Bryan v. John Bean Division of FMC Corp. · Kathleen G. O'Gee v. Dobbs Houses, Inc., and Third-Party v. United Air Lines, Inc., Third-Party and Cross-Appellant · Marsee v. United States Tobacco Co.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). 5 The importance of a trial on the merits cannot be overstated in this case. Here, the trial court's decision to reduce the amount due on the Note was based entirely on the calculations proffered by HMW without providing Catjen any opportunity to challenge either the calculations or the qualifications of the individuals who made them. The admission of hearsay expert opinion without the testing safeguard of cross-examination is fraught with overwhelming unfairness to the opposing party. No litigant in our judicial system is required to contend with the opinions of absent”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““In any civil action any expert witness may give testimony and render an opinion or draw inferences from facts, circumstances or data made known to or perceived by such witness at or before the hearing or trial during which he is called upon to testify. The facts, circumstances or data relied upon by such witness in forming an opinion or drawing inferences, if of a type normally relied upon by others in the particular field of expertise in forming opinions and drawing inferences, need not be admissible in evidence. The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Toraish v. Lee · Com. v. Wynn““authorize die admission in evidence, upon the direct examination of an expert witness, of hearsay matters of opinion upon which the expert relied in reaching his own opinion, notwithstanding the fact that the opinion of the expert witness is itself admitted, and notwithstanding the fact that the hearsay is of a type normally relied upon by others in the witness’ particular field of expertise.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. Wynn · Lloyd v. Kime
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.