Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 334 · 1982
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp. (1995), Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. (1983)
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Hansberry v. Lee · Patterson v. United States · Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet
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 175 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In our justice system, the practice of taking judicial notice of adjudicative facts should be exercised with great caution. This caution arises from our belief that the taking of evidence, subject to established safeguards, is the best way to resolve disputes concerning adjudicative facts. When a matter is judicially noticed “it is taken as true without the necessity of offering evidence by the party who should ordinarily have done so.” Thus, historically, “judicial notice applies to self-evident truths that no reasonable person could question, truisms that approach platitudes or banalities.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To have control of litigation requires that a person have effective choice as to the legal theories and proofs to be advanced in behalf of the party to the action. He must also have control over the opportunity to obtain review.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The party asserting the estoppel [can] show that: (1) the issue to be concluded is identical to that involved in the prior action; (2) in the prior action the issue was “actually litigated”; and (3) the determination made of the issue in the pri- or action [was] necessary and essential to the resulting judgment.”
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.