Hannah v. Haskins’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.2d 373 · 1980
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Harris v. Pirch (1982), Vanskike v. ACF Industries, Inc. (1981)
19 federal appellate · 4 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 Bates v. State Bar · Scalza v. United States · Eichel v. New York Central Railroad · Shapiro v. Thompson · 4 Cal. 3d 725 - Hrnjak v. Graymar, Inc.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[play-ments received from collateral sources are nol generally allowed to be introduced into evidence for purposes of reducing a damage award or showing wrongdoing{,] ... [elvidence relating to such payments ... has been held to be admissible for the purpose of establishing the extent of injury”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Luther v. Lander“Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
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.