Strain v. Heinssen’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2015
8 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 Padilla-Martinez v. United States · Texas Co. v. Betterton · Ouachita National Bank v. Tosco Corp. · State v. Plaster · Davila Ex Rel. Taylor v. Bodelson
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Strain moved for a ruling in advance of trial concerning the scope of her counsel’s cross-examination of Dr. Heinssen’s expert witnesses, physicians Farb and Elston. Specifically, Strain sought to show that Dr. Farb and Dr. Elston were both hired, not by the defendant, but by his malpractice liability earrier[.] Only through this testimony, Strain claimed, could she reveal the bias of these witnesses as “hired guns” for Dr. Heins-sen’s insurance carrier. The trial court disagreed. It ruled that Strain’s counsel could cross-examine the doctors generally concerning the frequency with which they had previously testified on behalf of doctors in other malpractice eases, including whether that testimony supported the plaintiff or the defense, but could not inquire concerning the experts’ employment by a named insurance company[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cenal v. Ragunton“Here the trial court allowed Strain wide latitude to question the defense witnesses about whether they were paid to testify and the frequency with which they testify for doctors in malpractice eases. It was obvious on whose behalf they were testifying. On this issue of “disinterestedness,” we think the relevant evidence is not who paid for their testimony but the fact it was procured through a promise of compensation by the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cenal v. Ragunton“The record before us discloses no evidence that the relationship between Farb, Elston, and St. Paul is closer than that of any other experts and the insurer calling them in a malpractice case. Beyond mere payment in exchange for testimony in this trial (and in Dr. Farb’s case, a handful of other trials), no agency or employment relationship roas established.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cenal v. Ragunton
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.