Blanke v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.3d 1224 · 1998
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Paula Darlene Hampton Demetria Cooper v. Dillard Department Stores Inc Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Amicus Curiae (2001), Morrison Knudsen Corporation v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company (1999)
31 federal appellate · 19 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
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Salve Regina College v. Russell · California v. ARC America Corp. · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Huebner 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The admissibility of evidence in diversity cases in federal court is generally governed by federal law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ascertain and apply Oklahoma law with the objective that the result obtained in federal court should be the result that would be reached in an Oklahoma court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Legislature, by authorizing the join-der as party defendants a motor carrier and its insurance carrier, in effect determined that when the liability insurance policy or bond is filed and the certificate of convenience or necessity is issued, no prejudice results from such joinder. Stated in another way, the Legislature by authorizing the joinder of the insurance carrier, has in effect determined that knowledge of insurance liability is not prejudicial to the right of the motor carrier or to its insurance carrier.”
2 later decisions 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.