Do modern Hanafi scholars still rely on mash'hur ahadith?

It is known that Imam Abu Hanifa and his followers did not consider a *sahih* hadith sufficient evidence to rule anything *fard*, rather he required that the hadith also be *mash'hur*. Ostensibly this was a measure of caution due to the large numbers of questionable ahadith that were being narrated during his time; one would not want to make a ruling based upon an erroneous hadith after all. Since then, significant advances in the hadith sciences have taken place. Today, thanks to the work of countless generations of dedicated scholars, we not only have a much larger corpus of hadith literature, but also a much stronger sense of their validity. Do modern Hanafi scholars still hold to the mash'hur requirement, now that the original concern (i.e. questionable ahadith being used as legal evidences) has been so mitigated?