66 Wash. 2d 449 - Gerard v. Peasley’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1985
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 52 Wash. 2d 792 - Gerberg v. Crosby · 64 Wash. 2d 177 - Mason v. Bon Marche Corp. · 58 Wash. 2d 106 - Wise v. Hayes · 54 Wash. 2d 75 - Twidwell v. Davidson · 64 Wash. 2d 887 - McBroom v. Orner
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.
““(1) In testifying to what he has perceived a witness, whether or not an expert, may give his testimony in terms which include inferences and may state all relevant inferences, whether or not embracing ultimate issues to be decided by the trier of fact, unless the judge finds “(a) that to draw such inferences requires a special knowledge, skill, experience, or training which the witness does not possess, or “(b) that the witness can readily and with equal accuracy and adequacy communicate what he has perceived to the trier of fact without testifying in terms of inference or stating inferences, and his use of inferences in testifying will be likely to mislead the trier of fact to the prejudice of the objecting party. “(2) The judge may require that a witness, before testifying in terms of inference, be first examined concerning the data upon which the inference is founded.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“These rules, however, should be used with caution so that, as suggested in Twidwell, supra, the trials of automobile negligence cases do not become a contest between expert witnesses who, upon examining, the exhibits and-hearing the testimony, tell the jury which version of the accident is more worthy of belief and advise which party should recover.”
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.