Warzon v. Drew’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In general, high ranking government officials enjoy limited immunity from being deposed in matters about which they have no personal knowledge. The immunity is warranted because such officials must be allowed the freedom to perform their tasks without the constant interference of the discovery process. [Cits, omitted] Before the involuntary depositions of high ranking government officials will be permitted, the parties seeking the depositions must demonstrate that the particular official’s testimony will likely lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is essential to that party’s case. [Cits, omitted] In addition, the evidence must not be available through an alternative source or via less burden some means.” Warzon v. Drew, 155 F.R.D. 183 (E.D.Wis.1994). See also In re United States of America, 985 F.2d 510 (11th Cir.1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State of Georgia Department of Children & Youth Services