Since Freud, psychoanalytic case studies have been scrutinised as irredeemably subjective anecdotal reports. This paper explores criticisms at three different levels: suggestive influence and scientific judgment (case study as a form of classification and judgment); (counter)transference as a ‘problem child’ (case narrative as an emotionally biased communication); validation (case study as an anecdotal report with non-generalisable findings). In exploring these different criticisms, the paper also investigates different historical reactions toward the genre of psychoanalytic case study and the practice of case writing, as well as the significance of research pragmatism for psychoanalytic research in particular and psychological research more broadly. By bringing these criticisms and responses together, the paper seeks to provide a snapshot of how case studies survived the sceptics, and what past lessons can be learnt in developing the case study method further.