337 So. 2d 325 - Hardman v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2016
1 federal appellate · 6 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 Steenhuis v. Holland · Williams v. Colquett · Wylam Ice Company v. King
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not entitled to [postjudgment] relief [because] he did not raise the defense of pro tanto settlement at his first opportunity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The policy in favor of the pro tanto satisfaction for joint tort-feasors is well established in Alabama law upon the theory that the right of action against joint tort-feasors is one and indivisible.”
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.