Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 FRD 1 - Monroe v. Ridley

Monroe v. Ridley’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
August 2005
most recently cited

4 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Lyell Theatre Corp. v. Loews Corp. · Shea v. Donohoe Construction Co. · United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Insurance · Black Panther Party v. Smith · Bristol Petroleum Corp. v. Harris

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Such a position is intolerable. Plaintiff is entitled to try to prove his case no matter what Defendant may think of it, and Defendant is therefore obliged to provide Plaintiff with responses to his discovery requests. To even suggest that Defendant’s opinion of Plaintiff's case should have any bearing upon the discovery process demonstrates willful disregard for the responsibilities Defendant owes the court and his opponents.”
    1 later decision 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.