Stanley v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably 52 Cal. 4th 541 - Howell v. HAMILTON MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC. (2011), Law v. Griffith (2010)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Pennsylvania Co. v. Marion · Acuar v. Letourneau · Koffman v. Leichtfuss · Brosnan v. Sweetser · 879 So. 2d 692 - Bozeman v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a personal injury or wrongful death action, the court shall allow the admission into evidence of: (1) proof of collateral source payments other than: (A) payments of life insurance or other death benefits; (B) insurance benefits that 2 the plaintiff or members of the plaintiffs family have paid for directly; or (C) payments made by: (i) the state or the United-States; or (ii) any agency, instrumentality, or subdivision of the state or the-United States; that have been made before trial to a plaintiff as compensation for the loss or injury for which the action is brought; (2) proof of the amount of money that the plaintiff is required to repay, including worker’s compensation, benefits, as a result, of the collateral benefits received; and (3) proof of the cost to the plaintiff or • to members of the plaintiffs family of collateral benefits received by the plaintiff or the plaintiffs family. .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]hese contractual discounts confer significant benefits upon medical service providers in addition to just the cash received in discounted payments. In exchange for medical services, providers receive not only the insurer's payments, but also the pecuniary value of numerous additional benefits, among which are prompt payment, assured collectability, avoidance of collection costs, increased administrative efficiency, and significant marketing advantages. [¶] It is widely recognized that, by agreeing to reduced rates, providers gain significant administrative and marketing advantages, `including a large volume of business, rapid payment, ease of collection, and occasionally advance deposits.' Lawrence F. Wolper, Health Care Administration: Planning, Implementing, and Managing Organized Delivery Systems 553 (4th ed.2004) . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he ‘purpose of the collateral source statute is to determine the - a'ctual amount of the prevailing party’s pecuniary loss and to preclude that party from recovering more than once from all applicable sources for each item of loss sustained in a personal injury or 'wrongful death action. I.C. § 34-44-1-1(1)-(2). At the same time, it retains- the common law principle that collateral source payments should not reduce a damage award if they resulted from the victim’s own foresight — both insurance purchased by the victim and also government benefits — presumably because the victim has paid for those benefits through taxes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.