61 Wash. 2d 75 - Smith v. Ernst Hardware Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2016
15 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 Kraettli v. North Coast Transportation Co. · Estes v. Babcock · Poropat v. Olympic Peninsula Motor Coach Co.
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.
“It is the rule in this state that a doctor who treats a patient and later becomes a witness may, in relating his medical conclusion, testify relative to statements made to him by his patient, as an exception to the hearsay rule. Hinds v. Johnson, 55 Wn. (2d) 325, 347 P. (2d) 828 (1959); Petersen v. Department of Labor & Industries, 36 Wn. (2d) 266, 217 P. (2d) 607 (1950); 51 A.L.R. (2d) 1051. A physician may relate these statements regarding symptoms for the limited purpose of supporting his medical conclusion. The statements made by the patient to the doctor, which constitute the basis of his expert opinion, are not evidence which establishes the fact of the patients condition. Kraettli v. North Coast Transp. Co., 166 Wash. 186 , 6 P. (2d) 609 , 80 A.L.R. 1520 (1932); Poropat v. Olympic Peninsula Motor Coach Co., 163 Wash. 78 , 299 Pac. 979 (1931); Estes v. Babcock, 119 Wash. 270 , 205 Pac. 12 (1922).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Causal relationship cannot be established by the doctor’s hearsay testimony. ****** “ * * * we hold that Dr. Maas’ testimony was admissible for the limited purpose of establishing the basis upon which the doctor premised his opinion. The doctor’s hearsay evidence had no probative value to establish the fact of the cold, upon which he predicated his conclusion relative to the causal relationship between the accident and the sinus condition. Since the causal relationship between the accident and the sinus condition was not otherwise established, the trial court properly granted a new trial * * */> (Emphasis supplied)”
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.