Johnson v. Hk Webster Inc’s Empirical Analysis
775 F.2d 1 · 1985
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 21 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Outley v. City of New York (1988), Fortino v. Quasar Company a Division of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (1991)
37 federal appellate · 21 district · 3 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 Kotteakos v. United States · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Cryts v. French · Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn · Smith v. Ford Motor Co.
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]ourts have looked with disfavor upon parties who claim surprise and prejudice but who do not ask for a recess so they may attempt to counter the opponent's testimony.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e)(1)(B) provides: (e) Supplementation of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement the response to include information thereafter acquired, except as follows: (1) A party is under a duty seasonably to supplement the response with respect to any question directly addressed to ... (B) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of the person’s testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Njothing in the rule ... forecloses an expert from revising or further clarifying opinions during redirect or surrebut-tal in response to points raised by the opposing party during its cross-examination or the presentation of its case. We must therefore not read Rule 26 mechanically, but rather in light of its dual purposes, “narrowing of issues and elimination of surprise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Weiner v. Kneller
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.