Hall v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2011
21 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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Boddie v. Connecticut · DS v. Department of Public Assistance & Social Services · McCabe v. R.A. Manning Construction Co. · Yates v. Yates
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence * * * is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[rlesolution of which parent shall have custody necessarily implicates the fundamental right of family association. Accordingly, a court must afford a parent notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before it can deny the parent custody of his or her children.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Loghry v. Loghry · Bac v. Blm“Rule 403, W.R.E., permits a court to exclude evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed ... by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” The decision to exclude the evidence was made without inquiring as to whether there was anything new to present. Further, the court did not make allowance for the possibility that any of the evidence could be other than cumulative. It did not say that it would not permit a rehash of previous evidence; instead, it arbitrarily ruled that only one more "witness could testify. Such a ruling had no basis and cannot be justified under Rule 403, supra. The court’s decision was simply not to hear anymore of what the parties had to present. This ruling was in error under the rules of evidence. It infringed upon appellant’s constitutional right to be heard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pittman v. Pittman
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.