Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 F.2d 766 - Campbell v. Clark

Campbell v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

283 F.2d 766 · 1960

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
5
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2002 · most notably Werth v. Makita Electric Works, Ltd. (1991), Booth v. Peavey Co. Commodity Services (1970)

36 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

35019601970198019902000decided

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 Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S. A. · Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Grayson v. Williams · Meneley v. Montgomery · E. L. Farmer & Company, a Corporation v. Marshall W. Hooks and American Motorists Insurance Company

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In view of the fact here that appellant was the only eye witness to the accident who testified; in view of the conflicts between his statement and his testimony; in view of the fact that appellee was unable to recollect anything concerning the accident; and in view ■ of the qualifications of the expert, we think that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting- his testimony as a means of aiding the jury in reconstructing the scene in respect to the point of impact of the two vehicles and in respect to their respective angles at the time of the impact.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the exercise within normal limits of the discretion of the trial court in the admission of such testimony will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.