Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
911 F.2d 1044 · 1990
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Reyna (1998), State v. Taylor (1996)
18 federal appellate · 7 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Chambers v. Mississippi · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Hanna v. Plumer · Carnegie 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether a particular provision is substantive or procedural for Erie purposes is determined by looking to the 'twin aims' of the Erie doctrine: the discouragement of forum shopping and the avoidance of the inequitable administration of the laws.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not difficult to demonstrate how the evidentiary scheme created by the Federal Rules of Evidence, as ■ complemented by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, renders the uncalled-witness rule an anachronism. A litigant may use modern discovery procedures to ascertain the identity and proposed testimony of witnesses identified with her opponent. If the district court finds that a party is concealing the identity and location of persons with knowledge of discoverable matter, the court may impose an appropriate penalty. If a litigant wishes to call a hostile witness but the witness is unwilling to testify, the litigant may resort to compulsory process. When the litigant has the hostile witness on the stand, she may use leading questions to interrogate the witness, and if necessary impeach the witness under Rule 607 by any of the standard means, including use of the witness’s prior inconsistent statements.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable.”
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.