Russo v. Merck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 7 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Franks v. National Dairy Products Corp. · 91 N.J. Super. 135 - Rogotzki v. Schept

2. “* * * The methods employed by the defendant in the production of its blood plasma are solely within its knowledge. The plaintiff is entitled to liberal discovery in attempting to ascertain the facts surrounding its production. She is entitled to know why certain things were done, or were not done, by the defendant. The fact that the deponents possess expert knowledge should not immunize them from examination or inquiry designed to give a complete picture as to whether negligence existed in the production of the blood plasma and as to whether the defendant had `knowledge and notice' that the blood plasma sold and distributed by the defendant and injected into the deceased contained said `poisonous and deleterious substances.' Questions which will elicit answers bearing on these issues are proper even though such answers may constitute the opinions of the deponents. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure liberal pretrial discovery procedures are intended. This being so, the power of this Court under Rule 30(b) to limit the scope of an examination under Rule 26 should not be exercised in the absence of a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith and in such a manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass or oppress the deponent or the opposite party. Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1954, 16 F.R.D. 31 ; Banana Distributors, Inc. v. United Fruit Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1956, 19 F.R.D. 244 . No such showing has been made here.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 N.J. Super. 135 - Rogotzki v. Schept

3. “* * * Although the answer to these questions will carry the opinion of the witness, it will amount to a statement of facts as to why certain things were done, or not done, by the defendants. Unless this information is made available, and this is the one person who knows, a full and complete picture will not be presented when consideration is given as to whether negligence or lack of care existed in the construction of said tank.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 91 N.J. Super. 135 - Rogotzki v. Schept