Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 822 F.2d 1038 - Hashwani v. Barbar

Hashwani v. Barbar’s Empirical Analysis

822 F.2d 1038 · 1987

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc. (1990), Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. (2003)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

12019871990200020102020decided

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 Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. · American Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Associates, Inc. · United States v. Acres of Land More or Less Situated in County of Mariposa State of California · Cathbake Investment Company Inc v. Fisk Electric 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, we consider the extent of appellant’s diligence in his [or her] efforts to ready his [or her] defense prior to the date set for hearing. Second, we consider how likely it is that the need for a continuance could have been met if the continuance had been granted. Third, we consider the extent to which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court and the opposing party, including its witnesses. Finally, we consider the extent to which the appellant might have suffered harm as a result of the district court’s denial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “applicable ... because the parties' rights and obligations are clearly stated in the ... agreement, and there is no ambiguity that would warrant the introduction of parol 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.