Frank Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc., in No. 77-2096 v. Roland Alvarez, Third-Party Frank Lloyd v. American Export Lines, Inc. v. Roland Alvarez, Third-Party in No. 77-2097’s Empirical Analysis
580 F.2d 1179 · 1978
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia (1992), Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd (1983)
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Berger v. United States · Hilton v. Guyot · McGautha v. California · Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner · Somportex Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp.
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Hearsay exceptions 29 "The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: 30 "(1) Former testimony 31 "Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Former testimony — Rule 804(b)(1) as submitted by the Court allowed prior testimony of an unavailable witness to be admissible if the party against whom it is offered or a person “with motive and interest similar” to his had an opportunity to examine the witness. The House amended the rule to apply only to a party’s predecessor in interest. Although the committee recognizes considerable merit to the rule submitted by the Supreme Court, a position which has been advocated by many scholars and judges, we have concluded that the difference between the two versions is not great and we accept the House amendment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial ... adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by ... imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment. ...””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.