Simmons v. Hoegh Lines’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 1234 · 1986
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2002
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Copeland v. United States · Eichel v. New York Central Railroad · Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. · United States v. Jardina · United States v. Goichman
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is little likelihood of prejudice and no strong potential for improper use, and a careful qualifying jury instruction is given, then receipt of compensation benefits may be admissible for the limited purpose of proving another matter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“juries will be more likely to find no liability when they are aware that the plaintiff has already received compensation”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In our view the likelihood of misuse by the jury clearly outweighs the value of this evidence”
1 later decision 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.