Loper v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In approving the Rodriguez [ Travis Life Insurance Co. v. Rodriguez, 326 S.W.2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1959), approved by the Supreme Court in 160 Tex. 182 , 328 S.W.2d 434 ] construction of the statute [TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 3737e] we do not hold that diagnostic entries in hospital records may be considered as competent evidence of the condition they describe where they are genuinely disputed and necessarily rest largely in expert opinion, speculation or conjecture. "A witness is generally permitted to testify only to facts within his personal knowledge. He does not have to possess special qualifications to do so. He is not permitted to express an opinion since this invades the province of the trier of the facts. An exception to the personal knowledge prerequisite is represented by the testimony of a qualified expert in the expression of an opinion in the field of his qualifications. This is permitted because experts are considered to have a special knowledge not generally possessed by jurors and are better able to draw conclusions from the facts than the jurors. The diagnosis or medical opinion of a doctor is an example. Such testimony is in the nature of an expert opinion based on the application of the expertise of the doctor to the facts within his knowledge. The opportunity of cross-examination is unusually important to adversely affected parties. We do not read Article 3737e as purporting to render entries of such character admissible without exception; we cons”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reed v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

2. ““In summary, the jury heard the personal testimony and opinion of Dr. Swet-land that the boy suffered a skull fracture * * *; a contrary report was that of Dr. Hutchins. * * * the controlling influence on the jury was the expert testimony of Dr. Swetland who testified in person and was subjected to direct and cross-examination. It is not reasonably probable that the opinion entry attributed to Dr. Hutchins persuaded the jury to its verdict when it was offset by the report of Dr. Pettigrew and when the matter was developed in great detail by the personal testimony of Dr. Swetland before the jury.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Monk v. Cooper

3. “[Wjhere the statement of the physician consists of an opinion or a conclusion or of a diagnosis based upon his medical examination or findings of conditions not obvious or patently observable to persons generally, the same should be excluded. In such ease the doctor should be brought into court where he might be cross-examined by opposing counsel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ideal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sullivan