Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 CONNAPP 813 - O'Reilly v. General Dynamics Corp.

O'Reilly v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 57 Conn. App. 134 - Card v. State (2000), Dengler v. Special Attention Health Services, Inc. (2001)

25 state decisions

180199920002010decided

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 Towne v. Eisner · Struckman v. Burns · Vaill v. Franklin · Adzima v. UAC/Norden Division · Spatafore v. Yale University

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

  1. “Once the commissioner makes a factual finding, [we are] bound by that finding if there is evidence in the record to support it. ... Similarly, the conclusions drawn by the commissioner from the facts found must stand unless they result from an incorrect application of the law to the subordinate facts or from an inference illegally or unreasonably drawn from them. ... It [is] within the commissioner's discretion to credit all, part or none of the ... [expert] testimony. That determination cannot be overruled by the board unless it could not find any evidence to support the conclusion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Expert opinions must be based upon reasonable probabilities rather than mere speculation or conjecture if they are to be admissible in establishing causation. . . . To be reasonably probable, a conclusion must be more likely than not . . . Whether an expert's testimony is expressed in terms of a reasonable probability that an event has occurred does not depend upon the semantics of the expert or his use of any particular term or phrase, but rather, is determined by looking at the entire substance of the expert's testimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the absence of any magic words is not dispositive.”
    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.