Lamborn v. Dittmer’s Empirical Analysis
873 F.2d 522 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Console (1993), Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.L.L. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc. (1997)
21 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Smith v. Crouse · McSurely v. McClellan · Kahm v. United States
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Rule 608(b) should not stand as a bar to the admission of evidence introduced to contradict, and which the jury might find disproves, a witness's testimony as to a material issue in the case.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that the lawyer or a lawyer in his or her firm may be called as a witness other than oil behalf of a client, the lawyer may continue the representation until it is apparent that the testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client at which point the lawyer and the firm must withdraw from acting as an advocate before the tribunal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be sufficiently adverse to the factual assertions or account of events offered on behalf of the client, such that the bar or the client might have an interest in the lawyer’s independence in discrediting that testimony. Furthermore, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how and as to what issues in the case the prejudice may occur and that the likelihood of prejudice occurring is substantial.”
2 later decisions 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.