Boren v. Sable’s Empirical Analysis
887 F.2d 1032 · 1989
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co. (1995), United States v. Johnson (1992)
59 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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 United States v. Young · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Hayes v. Lockhart
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress intended Rule 801(d)(2)(D) 'to describe the traditional master-servant relationship as understood by common law agency doctrine.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“directed [the declarant's] work on a continuing basis,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Theoretically, there would be no objection to the number provided each conformed to an exception. Actually, however, as a comment pointed out with every increased level of hearsay there is a corresponding decrease in reliability. Every level of hearsay provides another possibility that the facts were inaccurately reported by the declarant either intentionally or unintentionally, or misunderstood by the person to whom the statement was made. Certainly the trial judge has discretion under Rule 403 to exclude a statement of multiple hearsay, even if each included portion meets the requirements of an exception, when he finds a statement so unreliable that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice and confusion.””
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.