Eliasen v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2018
4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Schiavone v. Fortune · White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad · Durflinger v. Artiles · Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hospital & Training School for Nurses · United States v. Meyer
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the expert’s pre-established facts and opinions will often be hard to distinguish from the “acquired and developed” ones, we think the purpose of the rule is to protect from discovery only those facts and opinions the expert has acquired and developed for the client who hired him in anticipation of litigation or for trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]n fact, the documents considered but rejected by the expert trial witness could be even more important for cross-examination than those actually relied upon by him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“considered but rejected by the testifying expert in reaching opinions.”
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.