Krueger v. Knutson’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Caspersen v. Webber (1973), Coenen v. Buckman Building Corporation (1967)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 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 Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Mohr v. Williams · Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad · Trumbaturi v. Katz & Besthoff, Ltd. · Hanrahan v. Safway Steel Scaffold 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It must be assumed that the jury gave consideration to [the doctor's] testimony and recognized that there was no opposing medical testimony and that the trial court had these factors in mind both during the course of the trial and upon the arguments in support of the motions for a new trial. It was the prerogative of the jury to give full consideration to the medical testimony, but the jury was not conclusively bound to accept in every detail the medical testimony submitted. * * * * * * Medical experts are permitted to give their opinions upon the very issue which the jury will have to decide, but such opinions are not conclusive unless so positive as to exclude all doubt as to the matter on which they are given and unless based on testimony which is positive, consistent, unimpeached, and uncontradicted. Where the opinion does not exclude other possibilities or is not based on such testimony, its weight is for the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rud v. Flood · Barrera v. Muir“It is the rule in this state that the question of whether damages are adequate is addressed in the first instance to the discretion of the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“only where a verdict is so inadequate or excessive that * * * it could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice.”
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.