Case Citator › Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini

Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Seventh Circuit
Citation
724 F.3d 965
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
258 of 258
Citing cases (total)
454
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini remains good law: all 258 flagged citations have been read, and no adverse treatment was confirmed. The citing opinions applied Hill's rule that admissible self-serving evidence can create a genuine factual dispute, enforced its stated limits for conclusory or inadmissible assertions, or copied history parentheticals identifying Hill as the decision that overruled older circuit language.
More on how this was screened

The other nearby treatment words concerned unrelated authorities, arguments, and factual disputes.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

454 later cases cite Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini; 258 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 258 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Anthony Hill v. Daniel M. Tangherlini and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace