Hanahan v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Pye v. Estate of Fox Ex Rel. Estate of Fox (2006), Fields v. Regional Medical Center Orangeburg (2005)
92 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 Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc. · Belisle v. Anzivino · 122 Wis. 2d 503 - Stoll v. Adriansen · Powers v. Temple
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of any civil proceeding is subject to being assessed for payment of all or a portion of the attorney’s fees and court costs of the other party if: (1) he does so primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based; and (2) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the person seeking an assessment of the fees and costs.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[N]o party to an action or proceeding, no person who has a legal or equitable interest which may be affected by the event of the action or proceeding ... shall be examined in regard to any transaction or communication between such witness and a person at the time of such examination ' deceased, insane or lunatic as a witness against a party then prosecuting or defending the action ... when such examination or any judgment or determination in such action or proceeding can in any manner affect the interest of such witness or the interest previously owned or represented by him....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brooks v. Kay“The issue must be submitted to a jury whenever there is material evidence tending to establish the issue in the mind of a reasonable juror. However, this rule does not author ize submission of speculative, theoretical and hypothetical views to the jury. We have repeatedly recognized that when only one reasonable inference can be deduced from the evidence, the question becomes one of law for the court. A corollary of this rule is that verdicts may not be permitted to rest upon surmise, conjecture or speculation.”
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.