Tyler v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably 499 So. 2d 499 - Harris v. Pineset (1986), 618 So. 2d 579 - Goodwin v. Goodwin (1993)
30 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 373 So. 2d 498 - Reck v. Stevens · Boswell v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc. · 296 So. 2d 257 - Revon v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. · 382 So. 2d 250 - Guidry v. Davis · 267 So. 2d 608 - Hillebrandt v. Holsum Bakeries, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The tortfeasor must pay the victim for the cost of unneeded medical treatment of the victim's injuries unless the expense was incurred as a result of the bad faith of the victim. The reason for the rule is that as between the victim and the tortfeasor the basic cause for the excessive expense of treatment is attributable to the party whose fault caused the injury rather than the victim.... This rule requiring the tortfeasor to pay for the overtreatment of the victim applies to excessive treatment of the victim by a chiropractor when the overtreatment is not attributable to the bad faith of the victim. (Citations omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, the initial inquiry must always be directed at whether the trial court's award for the particular injuries and their effects upon this particular injured person is a clear abuse of the trier of facts' much discretion. It is only after articulated analysis of the facts discloses an abuse of discretion, that the award may on appellate review for articulated reason be considered excessive or insufficient.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he qualification of an expert witness rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and his determination will not be disturbed absent manifest error. Generally, the fact that a medical doctor is not a specialist in a particular field applies only to the effect on the weight to be given such testimony, not to its admissibility. Tyler v. Richardson, 476 So.2d 899 (La.App. 2 Cir.1985), writ denied, 478 So.2d 907 (La.1985); Chatelain v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 495 So.2d 379 (La.App. 3 Cir.1986), writ denied, 498 So.2d 756 (La.1986).”
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.