62 So. 2d 676 - Walker v. Monroe’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 1970
24 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 50 So. 2d 87 - Anders v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp. · Vaughn v. Solvay Process Co. · 52 So. 2d 74 - May v. Cooperative Cab Co. · Pierce v. Delta Tank Mfg. Co. · 53 So. 2d 182 - Price v. TL James & 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The testimony of a specialist in the particular field involved is entitled to more weight than that of a nonspecialist, and, as a general rule, greater weight should be accorded to the testimony of trained and experienced surgeons than to that of nonsurgeons or general practitioners. There is a rule of thumb, applicable in certain circumstances, that where there is a conflict in the testimony of medical experts, the court will give greater weight to that of the treating physician. So, the factual or opinion evidence of a physician who has first-hand knowledge of the case is entitled to greater weight than that of a physician who testifies without such knowledge; the opinion of the attending physician should be given greater weight than that of a physician who examined the employee only on one or two occasions; and the testimony of the physician first examining an injured person is usually accorded greater weight than the testimony of one more remotely removed therefrom.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Because of plaintiff's failure to secure the testimony of the five physicians who examined him at his own request, and in the absence of some explanation for their non-appearance at the trial, it must be presumed that such testimony would be adverse to plaintiff. Law v. Kansas City Bridge Co., Inc., La.App.1940, 199 So. 155 ; Miller v. Anderson-Post Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc., La.App.1941, 3 So.2d 196 ; Thomas v. Maryland Casualty Co., La. App. 1947, 32 So.2d 472 ; May v. Cooperative Cab Co., La.App.1951, 52 So. 2d 74 ."”
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.