Miscellaneous Docket # 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket # 2’s Empirical Analysis
197 F.3d 922 · 1999
Citation profile
46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
October 2016
most recently cited
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart · Herbert v. Lando · Brame v. United States · Alaska v. United States
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the court has a range of choice, and its decision will not be disturbed as long as it stays within that range, is not influenced by any mistake of law or fact, or [does not make] a clear error of judgment in balancing relevant factors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pamida Inc · Walker v. Bonenberger“concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.