Howell v. Maytag’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Schroeder v. Com., Dept. of Transp. (1998), Allstate Insurance Company v. Hamilton Beach/proctor Silex Inc 04-6282-Cv (2007)
6 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Hickman v. Taylor · Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. · Unigard Security Insurance v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party which reasonably anticipates litigation has an affirmative duty to preserve relevant evidence.”
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.