Steinberg v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America’s Empirical Analysis
364 F.2d 266 · 1966
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1999 · most notably Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co. (1977), Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees (1975)
26 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 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 United States v. Spaulding · Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co. · Neese v. Southern Railway Co. · 37 Cal. 2d 465 - Huffman v. Lindquist · Sinz v. Owens
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendant has cited in its brief a number of older cases from this circuit and elsewhere in support of its contentions as to the rule of evidence here in issue. These cases are inapposite not only because they are readily distinguishable but also because they simply do not stand for such an overbroad proposition. Rather, they support the correct rule, which is one of inquiry: whether the jury can receive appreciable help from the witness. If the question is one which the layman is competent to determine for himself, the opinion testimony is excluded; if he reasonably cannot form his own conclusion without the assistance of the expert, the testimony is admissible. See generally 7 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1917-1929 (3rd Ed. 1940), and cases cited therein. "[7] A medical malpractice case is one of the classic examples of the necessity of expert opinion testimony as to the ultimate issueindeed, it appears settled in most jurisdictions that a plaintiff in such a case cannot succeed without it."”
2 later decisions 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.