Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 261 Mich. 307 - Ford v. Nicol

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.

  1. ““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 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.