563 So. 2d 172 - Secada v. Weinstein’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2015
2 federal appellate · 13 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 413 So. 2d 43 - Webb v. Priest · A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Campbell · Robinson v. Eavey · 71 Ill. App. 3d 339 - Ryan v. Blakey · 88 So. 2d 507 - Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Company
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the fact that Dr. Gregory consistently and repeatedly testified to the same effect in previous cases, even specifically designated ones, was a perfectly proper subject of cross-examination to demonstrate his alleged bias and prejudice, 24 Fla.Jur.2d Evidence and Witnesses Sec. 673 (1981); Wilson v. Stilwill, 411 Mich. 587, 599-603 , 309 N.W.2d 898, 902-03 (1981), the same may emphatically not be said as to the results of those trials. As a, pardon the expression, threshold matter, this subject would improperly permit inquiry into a whole range of issues — concerning not only the particular facts of each of the cases about which Dr. Gregory was asked — but also the presumably many cases in which the jury found no permanency and thus agreed with him, as well as a similar point-counter-point concerning each of the previous cases in which the other experts, including the plaintiffs, had testified. The introduction of thoroughly eollateral questions like these is impermissible. See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274 , 139 So. 886 (1932).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ny information as to prior verdicts has the inevitable tendency of causing the jury in the present case to defer to decisions made in a previous one and thus to delegate the uniquely wow-dele-gable duty of reaching its own independent conclusions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[To admit] evidence that a previous “fact finder” — whether an investigating police officer, a traffic court, or a jury in a previous trial in the same case-reached a conclusion on an issue in the present trial.”
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.