Condron v. Harl’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2002
3 federal appellate · 17 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 McIver v. Gloria · Morris v. Cartwright · Baros v. Kazmierczwk · 65 Cal. App. 2d 795 - Ostertag v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Finnerty v. Darby
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The testimony was to the effect that plaintiff, on medical advice, was. seeking to live with his disability, rather than to be operated upon. Surgery, it was testified, was an alternative to be considered ‘at such time as he felt that living with it was too burdensome.’ There was insufficient evidence to show with reasonable certainty that plaintiff’s condition would, in future, call for an operation. Accordingly it was error to submit to the jury the matter of an award for the expenses incident thereto. Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry., v. Swan, 130 S.W. 855 (Tex.Civ.App.); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Flood, 70 S.W. 331 (Tex.Civ. App.) ; Davis v. Midwest Dairy Products Corp., 58 So.2d 741 (La.App.); Rodriguez v. Gerontas Compania De Navegacion, 150 F.Supp. 715, 720 (S.D. N.Y.), aff’d, 256 F.2d 582 (2d Cir.) ; Consolidated Arizona Smelting Co. v. Egich, 22 Ariz. 543 , 199 P. 132 ; Holahan v. McGrew, 111 Cal.App. 430 , 295 P. 1054 ; Annot., 69 A.L.R.2d 1261 , 1273. For the same reason, it was error to admit evidence as to the cost of the operation over defendant’s objection thereto, as set out in Specification of Error No. 8.” 374 P.2d 619 .”
1 later decision 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.