Woods v. Robb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The saving of time and expense is the purpose to be attained by a summary judgment in a proper case. When in due course the final trial is had on the merits it becomes the best test of the rights of the movant. If he wins on trial he has his judgment. If he loses on a fair trial it shows that he ought not to have any judgment.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Orlandis Bolden v. Darryl L. Winkelman · Hernandez v. Ebrom

2. ““(3) The judge in his findings held the request was apparently abandoned by plaintiff and that he later sought to take the interrogatories of the defendant which were themselves after-wards withdrawn. The interrogatories were intended to establish the same facts as the request admissions. We do not think their filing constituted an abandonment of the request. The Rules of Procedure give the right to seek discovery by both methods; a party does not have to elect one or the other, and may if he wishes pursue either or both. Rules 33 and 36. “(4, 5) Robb, long after the time limited by Rule 36 and in answer to the motion for summary judgment filed two sworn excuses for not having answered the request for admissions, one that he was too ill during the period for answer and the other that he did not have to answer anyhow, because he could not in a penalty suit he required to testify against himself. He did not ask for an enlargement of the time for answer, nor offer presently to answer. We think the illness ceased to be an excuse on its cessation. He was present in court at the trial. Nor was this such a suit as the second excuse would fit. The suit involves only civil sanctions, imposed as deterrents rather than punishments. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 , 58 S.Ct. 630 , 82 L.Ed. 917 ; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 , 63 S.Ct. 379 , 87 L.Ed. 443 ; Crary v. Porter, 8 Cir., 157 F.2d 410 ; Amato v. Porter, 10 Cir., 157 F.2d 719 ; Kessler v. Fleming, 9 Cir.,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wider v. Carraway

3. ““Each of the matters of which an admission is requested shall he deemed admitted unless, * * * the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission either a sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which an admission is requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny those matters, or written objections on the ground that some or all of the requested admissions are privileged 6 or irrelevant or that the request is otherwise improper in whole or in part * * 16 A.R.S., Rule 36(a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 7 Ariz. App. 277 - Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Superior Court in and for County of Cochise