Kahn v. Burman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

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

1. “As a matter of policy, also, witness immunity should extend to reports prepared by both potential and retained expert witnesses. Justice Stevens reasoned in Briscoe that damage suits against witnesses must "yield to the dictates of public policy, which requires that the paths which lead to the ascertainment of truth should be left as free and unobstructed as possible." This policy of providing for reasonably unobstructed access to the relevant facts and issues mandates the extension of immunity to Dr. Burman for all statements that he made in his reports to Attorney Gray. The overriding concern for disclosure of pertinent and instructive expert opinions before and during medical malpractice actions is no less significant than the clearly-recognized need for all relevant factual evidence during the course of litigation.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 113 Wash. 2d 123 - Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc. · 379 Pa. Super. 150 - Moses v. McWilliams

2. “Although Dr. Burman’s reports are not statements that were made under oath in the course of litigation, they may well satisfy the witness immunity prerequisite of ‘relevancy’ to the judicial proceedings ---- To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of witness immunity, which is to ensure the judicial process functions unimpeded by fear on the part of its participants that they will be sued for damages for their part in the proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Woodward v. Weiss