Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 652 SO2D 1208 - Maklakiewicz v. Berton

Maklakiewicz v. Berton’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2012

12 state decisions

60199520002010decided

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 440 So. 2d 350 - Tafero v. State · 429 So. 2d 1216 - Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. · Riggins v. Mariner Boat Works, Inc. · 536 So. 2d 260 - Smithson v. VMS Realty, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he presentation of the inadmissible evidence before the jury through the testimony of the officer as an accident reconstruction expert unfairly prejudiced the plaintiff and misled the jury by giving the inadmissible evidence the expert's imprimatur of approval and reliability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Id. at 1185 . Acknowledging that the evidence code allows an expert witness to render an opinion premised upon inadmissible evidence, the court nevertheless reiterated that such a witness may not serve as a conduit for the presentation of inadmissible evidence. See id. Citing numerous cases, the court expressed its concern that the out-of-court statement by the textbook author”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “and the testimony of a medical examiner who was not deposed and did not testify. Id. Other than the witnesses' testimony, there was no physical evidence that would explain how the accident occurred. Following Riggins , the third district held that the expert's opinion was inadmissible because it was”
    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.