Durflinger v. Artiles’s Empirical Analysis
727 F.2d 888 · 1984
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 13 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably United States v. Cardall (1989), United States v. Voss (1996)
64 federal appellate · 13 district · 16 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 Drope v. Missouri · Patterson v. United States · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · Greenwood v. United States
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party may ... discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only ... upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 14 Fed.r.serv.3d 571 · Uslw v. R“consider all that the jury heard and ... decide not whether the charge was faultless in every particular but whether the jury was misled in any way and whether it had understanding of the issues and its duty to determine these issues.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n error in jury instructions will mandate reversal of a judgment only if the error is determined to have been prejudicial, based on a review of the record as a whole.”
10 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.