Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.2d 1311 - Hicks v. Six Flags Over Mid-America

Hicks v. Six Flags Over Mid-America’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.2d 1311 · 1987

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
December 2019
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2019

12 federal appellate · 1 district ·

901987199020002010decided

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 Palmer v. Hoffman · Hoover's Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc./Special Products, Inc. · Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. · James A. McKinnon v. Skil Corporation · Hokanson v. Joplin Rendering Company, 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Evidence of prior accidents is inadmissible unless the proponent shows that the accident was sufficiently similar in time, place or circumstances to that in the case at bar. Hale v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 756 F.2d 1322, 1332 (8th Cir.1985); Hampton v. Kroger Co., 618 F.2d 498, 499 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam). This rule may apply to evidence introduced for the purpose of showing defendant’s notice of a dangerous condition. See McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638 F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir.1981). Even when substantial identity of the circumstances is proven, the admissibility of such evidence lies within the discretion of the district judge, who must weigh the dangers of unfairness, confusion, and undue expenditure of time in the trial of collateral issues, against the factors favoring admissibility. Id. In addition, this court will not disturb the evidentiary rulings of the district court absent a showing of prejudice. Grebin v. Sioux Falls Independent School District No. 49-5, 779 F.2d 18, 20 (8th Cir.1985).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “would have established how long the defendant had been on notice of the danger”
    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.