Weiner v. Kneller’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Butera v. District of Columbia (2001), Nolan v. Nolan (1990)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Cryts v. French · Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. · Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn · DeMarines v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines · Murphy v. Magnolia Electric Power Ass'n
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether allowing the evidence would incurably surprise or prejudice the opposite party; (2) whether excluding the evidence would incurably prejudice the party seeking to introduce it; (3) whether the party seeking to introduce the testimony failed to comply with the evidentiary rules inadvertently or willfully; (4) the impact of allowing the proposed testimony on the orderliness and efficiency of the trial; and (5) the impact of excluding the proposed testimony on the completeness of information before the court or jury.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified, (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice, (3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court, and (4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court’s order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"where testimony supports the larger theory presented by an expert, is not inconsistent with that theory, and does not present an alternative to it, it should be deemed part of the theory for purposes of [federal discovery rules]." Weiner v. Kneller (D.C.App.1989), 557 A.2d 1306 ; see also Dugan v. Weber (1988), 175 Ill.App.3d 1088, 1099 , 125 Ill. Dec. 598 , 530 N.E.2d 1007 .”
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.