Workman v. Crisco’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 134 Ga. App. 530 - Kamensky v. Stacey · 223 Ga. App. 894 - McNabb v. Landis · Stewart v. Odunukwe
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.
“A party may, through interrogatories, require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“only to experts whose knowledge of the facts and opinions held were acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, and not to an expert witness who is in fact an actor or observer of the subject matter of the suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“was an actor or observer of the subject matter in [the] suit[,]”
1 later decision 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.