Abbot v. Heath’s Empirical Analysis
1893
Citation profile
1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 1919
1 district · 5 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 Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Falvey · Davidson v. . Cornell · Roche v. . Brooklyn City Newtown R.R. Co. · Quaife v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Commonwealth v. Leach
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The counsel for the plaintiffs in error took exceptions to the statements made by the expert witness, Dr. Clevenger. The doctor was consulted by the plaintiff after this action was commenced, for the purpose of being a.witness on the trial of this action on the part of the plaintiff, and not Cor the purpose of medical advice or treatment. Against the objection of the defendants, this witness was permitted to detail all the statements made to him by the plaintiff of his sickness, pains, feelings, and his condition, from time to time, from the date of his injury down to the time of his consulting with him. From an examination of the plaintiff’s testimony given upon the trial as to his symptoms, pains, feelings, and the condition of his health, since the accident, and the testimony of Dr. Clevenger as to his sta tements to him upon the subject, it will he seen that what the doctor testiiied to as to the statements made to him correspond almost literally with those made by the plaintiff on the trial. There was therefore no necessity that the statements made by the plaintiff to Dr. Clevenger should be detailed by him on the trial, in order that he might forma correct opinion whether the troubles of the plaintiff were properly attributable to his injuries received at the time of the accident. It will hardly bo contended that the plaintiff could have introduced these statements, made by himself long after the action was commenced, as evidence on his part to prove the effect which t”
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.