Hydramar, Inc. v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2011
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Marino v. United States · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer · Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. New Jersey Wood Finishing Co. · Sporck v. Peil · Grand Jury Proceedings Fmc Corporation
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to documents prepared by General Dynamics on or after May 13, 1986, this Court will decide, upon an in camera inspection, with the first threat of litigation being a significant factor, whether the defendant has established that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] party ... does not have to be threatened with litigation by a plaintiff ... before the documents it prepares could be considered prepared in anticipation of litigation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.