Zurba v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \[I]t is only when the treating physician gives opinions beyond the scope of his own observation and treatment that he is considered a `retained' expert for purposes of [rule 26].\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Drew v. Lee
  Utah Supreme Court· 2011-03-15· cited 26×
• McCloughan v. City of Springfield
  C.D. Illinois· 2002-05-24· cited 15×
• Martin v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  S.D. Indiana· 2003-06-30· cited 14×
• Guarantee Trust Life Insurance v. American Medical & Life Insurance
  N.D. Illinois· 2013-07-26· cited 8×
• Rodgers v. Gary Community School Corp.
  N.D. Indiana· 2016-03-01· cited 4×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Davoll v. Webb
  Tenth Circuit· 1999-10-25· cited 256×
• Patel v. Gayes
  Seventh Circuit· 1993-01-21· cited 62×
• Salas v. United States
  W.D. New York· 1995-12-07· cited 39×
• Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett
  D. Rhode Island· 1976-02-13· cited 36×
• Baker v. Taco Bell Corp.
  D. Colorado· 1995-05-12· cited 35×
• James W. Richardson v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
  Seventh Circuit· 1994-02-22· cited 34×
• Brundidge v. City of Buffalo
  W.D. New York· 1999-11-19· cited 11×

Other cases named Zurba v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Zurba v. United States
  N.D. Illinois· 2001-09-28· cited 5×