Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 FRD 601 - Doubleday v. Ruh

Doubleday v. Ruh’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Prindel v. Ravalli County (2006), Fitzgerald v. Cassil (2003)

6 district · 3 state decisions

150199320002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)

Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Upjohn Company v. United States · United States v. Morgan · Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson · Federal Trade Commission v. Grolier Inc.

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

  1. “The potential economic vice of a less diligent attorney raiding the file of a previously diligent attorney is lacking in the context of a former criminal defendant, now plaintiff, seeking information from criminal files of a previous prosecution. As is generally the case in such a situation ... plaintiff's attorney is seeking information directly pertinent to the issues in this civil case, is not seeking the information because he is too "lazy” to develop the information himself, and is seeking information solely within the possession of the prosecuting agency.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The deputy district attorneys cannot assert the immunity because they are not parties to the present litigation, nor are they “representative of’ a party in this litigation for whom the work product was prepared.”
    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.