Paulsen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Nebraska Nutrients, Inc. v. Shepherd (2001), McWhirt v. Heavey (1996)
89 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 Lane v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Welke v. City of Ainsworth · Barks v. Cosgriff Co. · Miner v. Robertson Home Furnishing · Sherard v. Bethphage Mission, Inc.
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lack the definiteness required to meet the claimant's burden to prove causation. However, in conflict with that expressed position, the Atwood court determined that a physician's opinion was sufficient when he opined that although eye exams, before and immediately after the claimant's injury, would be needed to clearly associate the injury to work-related events, acid”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A qualified expert may not testify without adequate basis for his or her opinions concerning the facts of the case on which the expert is testifying. Expert testimony should not be received if it appears that the witness is not in possession of such facts as will enable the expert to express a reasonably accurate conclusion, and where the opinion is based on facts shown not to be true, the opinion lacks probative value. [Citation omitted.] The opinion must have a sufficient factual basis so that the opinion is not mere conjecture or guess. [Citation omitted.] Thus, a trial court may exclude an expert opinion because the expert is not qualified, because there is no proper foundation or factual basis for the opinion, because the testimony would not assist the trier of fact to understand the factual issue, or because the testimony is not relevant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... an expert opinion is to be judged in view of the entirety of the expert's opinion and is not validated or invalidated solely on the basis of the presence or lack of the magic words `reasonable medical certainty.'”
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.