Lee v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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.

1. “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. ... The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Powercorp Alaska, LLC v. Alaska Energy Authority · Lockwood v. Geico General Insurance Company

2. “The state could not take the chance that Lee, having failed to provide adequate discovery responses, would attempt to demonstrate [the validity of] his technologies and products at trial. We assume that the science underlying the technologies and products Lee advertised is sufficiently complex that, without pretrial discovery, the state would have had inadequate time to examine and understand the scientific principles pertinent to any demonstration, and consequently might have been unable to dispute whether the demonstration was valid or the principles were invalid. For these reasons, the sanction imposed-accepting the [State's] alleg[ation of consumer fraud] as admitted-was sufficiently tailored to the discovery violation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State

3. “At any time during a deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court ... may order the officer conducting the examination to cease forthwith from taking the deposition, or may limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition as provided in Rule 26(c). If the order made terminates the examination, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Khalsa v. CHOSE