Mackey v. IBP, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 23 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Doebele v. Sprint/United Management Co. (2003), McCoo v. Denny's Inc. (2000)
1 federal appellate · 23 district ·
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 Hickman v. Taylor · Upjohn Company v. United States · Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders · Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp. · Frank L. SPULAK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. K MART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To require an answer without such guidance typically involves an arbitrary determination by the court. The court strives to avoid arbitrariness. To make an appropriate order, the court must define the extent to which the interrogatory is reasonably answerable and not objectionable. In some instances the parties may themselves define the appropriate boundaries of the discovery. In other eases the parties provide little if any guidance as to what extent an interrogatory is non-objectionable. Sometimes other matters of record may define the discoverability of certain information encompassed by the interrogatory. Reliance upon such sources can enable the court to fashion an appropriate order. In the absence of such definition or resource, the court declines to speculate as to what the limits of such an order should be.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.”
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.