Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
601 F.2d 516 · 1979
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 6 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), Jaworski v. Kiernan (1997)
29 federal appellate · 6 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Flast v. Cohen · William Marbury v. James Madison · Cohens v. Virginia
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[r]ecklessness also differs [from negligence] in that it consists of intentionally doing an act with knowledge not only that it contains a risk of harm to others as does negligence, but that it actually involves a risk substantially greater in magnitude than is necessary in the case of negligence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The other aspect, namely the proof of character of the plaintiff by production of prior acts, would be admissible only if his character was an issue in the case. Unless the plaintiff was shown to have been an unlawful aggressor in the immediate incident, his prior acts could not be relevant. The indications from the picture of the action here are that he threw a body block and after the lapse of * * * a short period of time, the blow was struck while Hackbart was down on his knee watching the action. Therefore, this evidence would appear to be questionable if not irrelevant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. College v. Scanlan
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.