Dawson v. Lindsey’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1981
9 state decisions
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 De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co. · 71 F. Supp. 372 - Porter v. Montaldo's
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The restrictions of this Rule are readily apparent. There are two classes of pro hibited matter: (1) those writings obtained or prepared by the adverse party, his attorney, surety, indemnitor or agent in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial, and (2) any part of a writing which reflects the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney, or the conclusions of an expert. “Only under extraordinary circumstances may the court order the production of any writing in category (1). * * * “With respect to the writings in category (2), the prohibition is absolute and is not subject to the discretion of the trial court. [Citing authority]. If the writing constitutes the conclusion of an expert, its production may not be ordered.””
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.