Postell v. Hankla’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. . . [I]n professional malpractice actions, the opinions of an expert, who is otherwise qualified as to the acceptable standard of conduct of the professional whose conduct is at issue, shall be admissible only if, at the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, such expert: (1) Was licensed by an appropriate regulatory agency . . . ; and (2) In the case of a medical malpractice action, had actual professional knowledge and experience in the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is to be given as the result of having been regularly engaged in: (A) The active practice of such area of specialty of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years . . . ; or (B) The teaching of his or her profession for at least three of the last five years...; and (C) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph: (i) [i]s a member of the same profession ... ; and (D) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code section, an expert who is a physician and, as a result of having, during at least three of the last five years immediately preceding the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, supervised, taught, or instructed [non-physician health care providers] has knowledge of the standard of care of that health care provider under the circumstances at issue shall be competent to testify as to the standard of that health care provider. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hankla v. Postell

2. “As a general principle, the jury is entitled to consider a witness's financial interest in a case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stephens v. Castano-Castano.