Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 Cal. App. 4th 519 - Kelley v. Trunk

66 Cal. App. 4th 519 - Kelley v. Trunk’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 53 Cal. 4th 110 - People v. Eubanks (2011), 114 Cal. App. 4th 1108 - Jennings v. Palomar Pomerado Health Systems, Inc. (2003)

42 state decisions

260199820002010decided

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 8 Cal. 3d 689 - Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District · 8 Cal. 4th 992 - Flowers v. Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center · Kastner v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority · 267 Cal. App. 2d 837 - Griffith v. County of Los Angeles

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

  1. “standard is not satisfied by laconic expert declarations which provide only an ultimate opinion, unsupported by reasoned explanation”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “expert testimony is required to prove or disprove that the defendant performed in accordance with the prevailing standard of care. Kelley v. Trunk (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 519 , 523, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 122 [ ( Kelley ) ], citing, Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 689 , 702, 106 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 505 P.2d 193 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “' "[A]n expert's opinion rendered without a reasoned explanation of why the underlying facts lead to the ultimate conclusion has no evidentiary value because an expert opinion is worth no more than the reasons and facts on which it is based. [Citations.]”
    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.