Harris v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
372 F.2d 806 · 1967
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably Smith v. Ford Motor Co. (1980), Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center (1978)
56 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Jenkins v. United States · Korte v. New York, N. H. & H. R. · Joseph E. Thomas v. Ruth A. Martin Hogan · Sher v. De Haven
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ a careful reading of the record compels the conclusion that when Dr. Harris’ testimony was offered it was not excluded because there was a failure to show that he had sufficient experience with the treatment of compound fractures, as is contended by the appellee but, rather, his testimony was excluded because, although he was a medical doctor, he was not an orthopedic specialist. T am going to sustain the objection on the ground that this doctor has already testified that he is not in the orthopedic field, and he may not express his opinion on the field.’ (Emphasis supplied.) “In an action of this gravity, we believe appellant was entitled to place into evidence the testimony of all properly qualified expert witnesses and it constituted prejudicial error for the trial court to exclude the opinion testimony of Dr. Harris. The weight to be afforded this testimony was, of course, within the discretion of the jury.” (Emphasis in original and emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“< * -x- * Where a hypothetical question leaves out facts in evidence which so qualify the facts included that an answer to the question would be misleading and based upon inadequate premises, objection to the question should be sustained.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellee claims that in any event there was no offer of proof concerning the essence of Dr. Harris’ testimony and therefore the issue is here not reviewable. Rule 43(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides specifically that an offer of proof may be made when objection has been sustained to a question propounded by the examining attorney. To make an offer of proof in the above circumstances would have been the proper course but a formal offer of proof is not an absolute requisite to enable the presentment of error on appeal if that error affects the substantial rights of the parties. . . . If a question is proper on its face and indicates an answer favorable to the appellant, no offer of proof is necessary.” (Our emphasis).”
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.