Wischmeyer v. Schanz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he mere fact that an expert may have been named in an unrelated medical malpractice action is not probative of his truthfulness under MRE 608 or relevant to his competency or knowledge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kostel v. Schwartz · 238 Mich. App. 626 - Persichini v. William Beaumont Hospital

2. “In this case, [plaintiff's expert] testified that defendant should have undertaken a more conservative course of treatment, implying that a more conservative treatment would have prevented plaintiff's injuries. Through this testimony, he placed his competency to condemn defendant in question. The cross-examination of [plaintiff's expert] regarding prior poor surgical results, therefore, did not raise extrinsic evidence prohibited by [Rule 608(b)]. Because the competency of [plaintiff's expert] was properly before the court, evidence pertaining to his credibility was relevant. It is intended that the Rules of Evidence promote the ascertainment of the truth. [13] Where information is relevant and not unduly prejudicial, it would be unwise to apply [Rule 608(b)] so that the jury is deprived of information that would assist it in its task. We believe that this cross-examination was proper because during direct examination [plaintiff's expert] testified that he had performed hundreds of back surgeries, including PLIFs, in order to establish his competency. The juxtaposition of [plaintiff's expert's] testimony on direct examination and his conclusion that plaintiff's condition could only result from some negligence during surgery rendered [plaintiff's expert's] ability to perform such surgeries relevant. "Gaps or weaknesses in the witness' expertise are a fit subject for cross-examination, and go to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility." Because expert testimony is ad”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kostel v. Schwartz

3. “(1) the applicable standard of care, (2) breach of that standard by defendant, (3) injury, and (4) proximate causation between the alleged breach and the injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital Managers