Bushman v. Halm’s Empirical Analysis
798 F.2d 651 · 1986
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc. (1991), Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania (1991)
28 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 39 U.S.C. § 409
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Catlin v. United States
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiff has adequately drawn into question the objective nature of his pain and suffering through his own sworn statements. The pain and suffering plaintiff ejqrerienced immediately after the accident is directly linked to objectively identifiable symptoms of soft tissue injury verified in the medical evidence. Thus, the lower court erred when it concluded that plaintiffs injuries were “not obviously related to an identifiable injury.” While plaintiffs credibility may be challenged by opposing counsel at trial, it is not the function of the court to assume the role of the fact finder upon summary judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a jury should not be allowed to speculate on the issue of causation. If the question of causal relation is so esoteric that lay minds cannot form any intelligent judgment about it without expert aid an opinion from an expert may be required.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In essence, appellate courts reviewing the granting of motions for summary judgment are charged with undertaking three basic tasks; namely to: (1) accept, (2) allow, and (3) ask. Initially, the court must accept “[the non-moving party’s] allegations ... as true, even if in conflict with those of the moving party.” Next, the court must allow “[a]ny inference drawn from the underlying facts contained in the evidentiary sources” to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Finally, the court must ask whether, “from the evidence available at the time of the motion’s disposition, a jury could reasonably have inferred either directly or circumstantially that plaintiff’s injuries [were proximately caused by the defendant.]””
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.