Crawford v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
1 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably State v. Phillips (1970), Ferrell v. Baxter (1971)
1 district · 41 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 Trust Co. v. Zelle · Oxenberg v. Alaska · Lobel v. American Airlines, Inc. · Langenfelder v. Thompson · Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Corp.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the true criterion [for determining whether a person qualifies as an expert witness] is whether the jury can receive appreciable help from this particular person on this particular subject”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The general rule is that when the facts on which an opinion is based are not within the expert witness’s own personal knowledge, such facts must have been supplied to the jury by other evidence and then presented to the witness hypothetically before his opinion may be received. The reason for the rule is that the witness’s conclusion depends for its validity upon facts considered by him; and if the facts are not made to accompany the conclusion, then the jury would be asked to accept as evidence a conclusion which might not be supported by any evidence produced at the trial and which, therefore, the jury would have no basis for finding to be true. The rule has no application when the reason for its existence is lacking.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““As a rule of law in an action involving an accident where a claim of negligence is made, it permits a jury, on the basis of experience or common knowledge, to infer negligence from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. The jury is permitted to conclude that such an accident would not ordinarily occur unless someone had been negligent.””
2 later decisions 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.