Ford v. Nicol’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 1938
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bucher v. Wisconsin Central Railway Co. · Adams v. Bucyrus 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The testimony did not disclose evidentiary facts. The expert had but a theory that plaintiff was sterile because she did not become pregnant; that she did not become pregnant because of lack of ovulation; that lack of ovulation was because of shock to her nervous system. Probative evidence must be something more tangible than a mere pyramiding of theories. The witness gave no satisfactory data upon which to base his conjectures.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Zoski v. Gaines · Kemp v. Aldrich
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.