Hicks v. Mickelson’s Empirical Analysis
835 F.2d 721 · 1987
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Hardin v. Hussmann Corp. (1995), Morrison v. Duckworth (1990)
26 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Johnson v. Righetti · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Kahn v. Grant · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · McCarren Et Al. v. Town of Springfield, Vermont, Et Al.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... as this discussion took place off the record, we do not know nor may we consider what actually took place during the conference. Nor may we consider counsel's affidavit or statements contained in the briefs to supplement the record. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 , 983 (8th Cir.), cert. denied succinctly stated, speaking for our court, “[t]he appeal is to be determined upon the record below.” Stearns v. Hertz Corp., 326 F.2d 405 , 408 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934 , 84 S.Ct. 1338 , 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964). Furthermore, it does not appear from the record that counsel for Mrs. Hicks objected to the limitation of voir dire. It is incumbent upon counsel to make his record for appeal even if he believes that objecting to the actions of judge or counsel will give offense either to the court or to the jury. In order for us to review challenges of the district court’s rulings, the district court must be advised by counsel on the record of his objection and of the relief requested....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court refused to give the Scheerers' proposed instruction A which eliminated the requirement of knowledge and gave instructions on notice (No. 7), open and obvious danger (No. 14), and proper lookout (No. 8). The jury found no liability on the part of Hardee's. The district court denied the Scheerers' motion for new trial and entered judgment in favor of Hardee's. This appeal followed. 5 First, we consider the Scheerers' contention that the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“absent a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion.”
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.