Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 913 F.2d 1269 - Gong v. Hirsch

Gong v. Hirsch’s Empirical Analysis

913 F.2d 1269 · 1990

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
8
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc. (1996), 26 1673 74636 James Wilson Associates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1992)

26 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

3101990200020102020decided

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 Carnegie v. United States · Scharffe v. Perkins · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Hullum v. United States · Anschuetz & Co. v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority

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

  1. “We are aware that Rule 803(4) does allow the admission of statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis as well as treatment. As Judge Weinstein notes: Rule 803(4) rejects the distinction between treating and nontreating physicians because, as a practical matter, the advisory committee found that jurors do not distinguish between facts admitted for their truth and facts revealed as the basis for the expert’s opinion. Moreover, as a matter of policy, a fact reliable enough to serve as the basis for a diagnosis is also reliable enough to escape hearsay proscription. The test for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis under Rule 803(4) is the same as that in Rule 703 — is this particular fact one that an expert in this particular field would be justified in relying upon in rendering his opinion?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or the general character of the cause or the external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While Rule 703 entitles experts to base their opinion on [evidence otherwise inadmissible], the rule does not address the admissibility of the underlying information.”
    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.