Sandra Waldron v. Selma C. Hardwick’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 86 · 1969
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2025
15 federal appellate · 2 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · 24 Ill. 2d 390 - Caley v. Manicke · Affett v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. · Baron Tube Company, the Partnership of Hyman Baron and Jay Baron and Hyman Baron, Individually v. The Transport Insurance Company · Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.
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.
“Although there is a sharp split among the state authorities on the use of the so-called 'unit-of-time' argument, the federal courts of appeal which have considered the question generally have permitted such arguments.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in light of the undisputed fairness of the jury's verdict, we hold that in the circumstances whatever error occurred was so harmless as to not require reversal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that an inflexible rule treating per diem argument as reversible error is not advisable,” adding that”
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.