Wagner v. Reading Co.’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.2d 289 · 1970
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co. (1977), Walters v. Mintec/International (1985)
15 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Kiernan v. Van Schaik · Feeley v. United States · Tabuteau v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. · Thorp v. American Aviation & General Insurance · Schultz v. Pivar
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.
“"Also plaintiff contends that the trial judge erred in permitting defendant to show that the defendant had paid the plaintiff's medical bills which were introduced in evidence, especially since defendant was reimbursed for such expenses by an insurance carrier. Whereas the `collateral source rule' permits a plaintiff to recover such expenses although he has been reimbursed by his own insurance carrier or where a showing has been made that the defendant itself has paid the bills, intending a gift to the plaintiff, we have found no authority for the proposition that payment by the defendant's insurance carrier qualifies as a `collateral source' within this rule and permits plaintiff to recover for damages already paid for by the defendant." [Citation omitted]”
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.