McQuaig v. McCoy’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 1298 · 1987
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2010
7 federal appellate · 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Michel v. United States · Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Co. v. United States · Gillette Co. v. Miner
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the evidence must be offered to the court, we do not require a formal proffer; instead, the proponent of excluded evidence need only show in some fashion the substance of the proposed evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the substance of the deposition known to the district court”); Fenstermacher v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 493 F.2d 333 , 338 (3d Cir.1974) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The purpose of the proffer is to make known to the court for what reasons the evidence is offered.”
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.