Taylor v. Boger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Boatright, satisfactory to yourself as to what caused the death of Mrs. Curtis? A. Yes sir, a clot of blood moved from her vessels, the veins in her legs, through her heart and to the artery to the lungs and blocked it. Q. What does that do, sir? A. This dams up the flow of blood. And does not let the blood go around it. Almost as if you would drive a cork into the artery. Q. Dr. Boatright, you heard the testimony here a few minutes ago of Dr. Bill Owen, is that correct? A. Yes sir, I did. Q. Did you hear his description of the trauma, the injury, that Mrs. Curtis —that he observed on Mrs. Curtis on July 23rd? A. Yes sir, I did. Q. Did you hear his testimony as to her condition in the hospital and the course of her stay in the hospital? A. Yes sir, I did. Q. Dr. Boatright, do you have an opinion as a medical doctor, satisfactory to yourself, as to whether or not the trauma injuries that Nora Curtis had on the 23rd day of July, 1984 [sic], were a proximate cause of her death? Mr. CoweN: Objection. The Court: Overruled. Q. And what is that opinion? A. My opinion is that they were a proximate cause of her death. May I explain the reasoning— Q. Yes sir, I would ask you the basis for that opinion? A. The blood circulates in the body with no intrinsic pump or no pressure behind it, different from the arteries. The legs are the fartherest [sic] from the heart. The blood in these vessels in the legs is lying there. And the movement of muscles surroundin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ledford

2. ““The Court of Appeals sustained this ruling, stating: ‘ . . . We find no error in the court’s rulings. There is no evidence to show the necessity for plaintiff’s treatment in Ohio (where she lived for awhile after the accident in North Carolina). Furthermore, there is no evidence that the medical expenses paid in Ohio were reasonable in amount.’ The Court of Appeals relied on Ward v. Wentz, 20 N.C. App. 229 , 201 S.E. 2d 194 (1973). Factually, that case is distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case, there was no evidence that plaintiff had been referred by any doctor in North Carolina to any doctor in Florida. Her testimony was as follows: ‘ “ While I was in Florida, I did incur medical expenses for injuries sustained in the accident. The first doctor that I saw was Dr. Hilliard, and he charged me $50.00 and $62.00 that $112.00; the next doctor was Dr. Jackson and Dr. Annis, which together was $299.00, they are in the Watson Clinic. The next was Lakeland General Hospital for x-rays $65.00. The next was the physical therapist who charged $12.00 and $10.00, that’s $22.00. Dr. Smith charged $12.00 for x-rays. Lee Memorial Hospital bill was $32.00. I bought prescription drugs while I was in Florida and paid approximately $80.00 for those ....”’ There was no showing of the need for such services or that these services were required by the injury which she had sustained in the accident involved in that case. In the present case, Dr. Adams instructed plaintiff to consult an ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Evans v. Stiles

3. “When an expert witness testifies as to the facts based upon his personal knowledge, he may testify directly as to his opinion, . . . and when the facts are not within the knowledge of the witness himself, the opinion of an expert must be based upon facts supported by evidence stated in a proper hypothetical question.ii the expert witness has personal knowledge of some of the facts but not all, a combination of these two methods may be employed. In asking a hypothetical question, it is customary to incorporate in the question the relevant facts in evidence which counsel hopes will be accepted as true by the jury and to ask the witness his opinion based on such facts, if the jury shall believe them to be facts. ... In framing such a question, only such facts as are in evidence or such as the jury will be justified in inferring from the evidence should be included.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 N.C. App. 483 - Simons v. Georgiade