Weinstock v. Ott’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2006
20 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 Guy v. SCHULDT · Sinz v. Owens · Montgomery v. Crum · 174 Ind. App. 439 - Bassett v. Glock · Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial judge did not err in allowing the hypothetical question to be answered. Weinstock is correct that ordinarily an expert witness should not be allowed to answer a hypothetical question which assumes facts unsupported by the evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom, [citations omitted] This requirement guards against the trier of fact adopting an expert’s opinion which is based on false or inapplicable facts, [citations omitted] However, here this safeguard is not needed. The hypothetical question was asked during a voir dire examination outside of the jury’s presence. This examination was conducted so that the trial judge could determine whether Dr. Zarins was competent to testify as an expert medical witness. Because of the trial judge’s legal experience and expertise regarding the rules of evidence, we presume that he was able to hear the hypothetical question and its answer, then subsequently determine if enough evidence had been admitted to support the facts which the hypothetical assumed, [citations omitted]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A trial judge has broad discretion in determining what is improper argument. This Court will reverse a judgment because of improper remarks by counsel only when it appears from the entire record that those remarks were probably the means of securing an incorrect verdict.”
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.