Perry v. Winspur’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 893 · 1986
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Forrestine D. Lemaire, by and Through Her Conservator, Howard C. Lemaire, and Howard C. Lemaire v. United States (1987), MacCuish v. United States (1988)
18 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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 Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn · Smith v. Ford Motor Co. · Lurch v. United States · Case v. Abrams · Lentsch v. Marshall
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of disclosing the topic on which an expert is expected to testify is to minimize surprise at trial. The primary issue involved in this case concerned whether [the plaintiff] suffered chemical burns as a result of exposure to a 90 percent concentration of hydrogen peroxide and the appropriate treatment for such exposure. We fail to see how appellants could have been justifiably surprised by Dr. Albin’s testimony given the nature of the issue involved and his endorsement. Any discussion of the proper treatment for exposure to a chemical would necessarily involve the effects of exposure to that chemical____ Appellants were adequately apprised of the expected testimony of Dr. Albin, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting such testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a plastic surgeon and an expert in the treatment of burns, it was not unreasonable for the district court to permit Dr. Albin to testify as he did despite his limited knowledge of and experience with high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. The degree of expertise or knowledge affects credibility, and appellants had every opportunity to challenge Dr. Albin's credibility during cross-examination. The district court’s ruling on this matter was proper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“decision to allow or prohibit testimony or witnesses not described or listed in the pretrial order rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.