Cook v. Hoppin’s Empirical Analysis
783 F.2d 684 · 1986
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably United States v. Hall (1999), United States v. Mejia-Alarcon (1993)
67 federal appellate · 8 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 Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Hullum v. United States · CPC International Inc. v. Dimmitt Agri Industries, 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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By its own terms, Rule 803(4) does not exclude from the hearsay rule statements relating to fault which are not relevant to diagnosis or treatment. Roberts v. Hollocher, 664 F.2d 200, 204 (8th Cir.1981). See Advisory Committee Note to Fed.R.Evid. 803(4). The test, when examining whether statements contained in medical records relating to the cause of an injury are admissible hearsay, is whether such statements are of the type reasonably pertinent to a physician in providing treatment. See United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 83 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 , 101 S.Ct. 1709 , 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981). In determining which statements are relevant to diagnosis or treatment, each case must be examined on its own facts, and in making such a judgment much will depend on the treating physician's own analysis. 4 J. Weinstein and M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence [para.] 803(4)[01], at 803-147 (1985). In Cook's case, his physician testified that the statements relating to the alleged "wrestling match" were not of the type medical personnel generally rely on in making a diagnosis and providing treatment. Hoppin presented no evidence to rebut this assertion. Moreover, Cook's physician testified that he had not relied on these statements in his treatment of Cook. Based on this testimony, we find the statements inadmissible pursuant to Rule 803(4).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Evidence is unfairly prejudicial only if it will induce the jury to decide the case on an improper basis, commonly an emotional one, rather than on the evidence presented.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court's denial of a motion for a new trial should be overturned, therefore, only where the circumstances reveal a clear abuse of discretion.”
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.